I hopped on to X (twitter) prior to the November 2024 election, and there I encountered tons of militant new Roman Catholic converts, mainly from non-denom Evangelicals and quite a number of former Reformed ones, as well as hand-full of Lutherans who swam to Rome or Bosphorus.
However, I occassionally see a Lutheran mainly from the US in FB and in X claiming they are closer to Romanism, than they are to non-denom Evangelicals. Frankly, there is a kind of disdain for the latter. The problem with generalization, like painting a non-denom with a broad brush, is that you become unfair and you get it wrong.
I do find this really fanatically crazy.
I am the reverse, I believe I am much closer to the non-denom Evangelicals for the following reasons:
1. They at least are pro sola scriptura. You can talk to a non-denom Evangelical and argue from Scripture a point. We have the same authority. But you cannot do this to an RC nor to an EO person. It is well known they (RC and EO) have more than Scripture as their authority.
2. They are pro sola fide. At least they promote the notion that you are not saved by works. We can skip for the moment the nuance of this, but totally you cannot talk to the RC and EO about faith alone - they will insists anyone not belonging to there group and that inclues Lutherans are heretics when it came to this.
3. They are pro solo Christus. They are pro Jesus Christ alone! You do not hear non-denoms praying to Mary or anyother saints. In fact they insist on a personal relationship with Jesus. They do not promote devotion to Mary's statue, the kissing of icons and praying homage to anyone except Jesus. The RC and EO go so far as to say, if you do not believe Mary is the Queen of heaven, if she is not your Queen, you go to hell. You won't here a non-denom lifting anyone than Christ.
4. I get Lutherans think they are close to Rome when it came to the Supper, for example. That comparison is really different despite them using the same language, the Lutherans and the Romanists mean differently from those words. For example with Rome, upon consecration, there is no more bread, no more wine - but Christ's body and blood. To deny this is for you to be called not believing in the "real presence" - ie if you say the bread and blood are still there you are rejected. In fact, be warned, the BOC condemns the idea of Capernaitic eating.
5. Lastly, the non-denoms do not CONDEMN the Gospel unlike Rome's Council of Trent Canon 12. Here I now go to C F W Walther.
C F W Walther is against this idea that Lutherans are closer to Rome! Funny but most of these Lutherans who say they are closer I suspect are Walther fans!
People know that this blog is a critique of C F W Walther; for once, I will say something positive as to what Walther said - because he does get it - and credit to whom credit is due. I will quote what he said in his Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel, p. 66
Verily, the worst sects in th Christian Church are less harmful than the Pope. For all sects without exception admit that the only way in which a person may be saved is by faith in the grace of God in Christ Jesus. All sects, by their teaching, obscure the Gospel, but they do not, as the Pope does, anathematize and curse it. Inasmuch as all sects allow this thesis, that salvation is by the grace of God, through faith in Christ Jesus, to stand, they are incomparably superior to the Papacy. They are corrupted churches, but the Papacy is a false Church. Just as counterfeit money is no money, so the papal Church, being a false Church, is no Church. Compared with the corrupted sectarian churches, the papacy is a non-church, a denial of the Church of Christ.
