The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Lutheran vs Catholic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 120599
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance.
Friendly debate.
Only join if you are catholic.
I am debating for the lutheran side.


This is the second debate I've taken up. Thank you.

Lutheranism was instituted by a (created) man, Whereas Catholicism is instituted by God.

Martin Luther's religion is a quasi-manifesto of complaints against the universal Church at the time, Some of which were borrowed from the complaints of others decades before him. Some were admittedly legitimate concerns, But did not warrant disrupting the unity of the Church or the institution of a new heresy.

Martin Luther did not fulfill his vows of obedience, Chastity, And the spirit of poverty. Even if he disagreed with these items being necessary for clerics, They still serve useful purposes of grace, And are still binding on pain of sin once taken.

Martin Luther was interested in establishing dominance over other protestant sects during his rise, Even if it got people killed. Lutheran's doctrine spread much in the same way as Islam, Where Mohammed would take his followers from village to village and use force to spread it. Often it would only be suppressed in turn with Catholic forces.

Part of Luther's doctrine involves the authority of scripture alone the "Salvation by faith alone. " This is anti-Biblical. Lutheranism also borrows from Catholic traditions anyway.

Modern Lutheranism is ambiguous about dogmas on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Whom Luther himself otherwise defended vigorously during his career.
Debate Round No. 1


Nice to meet you! Remember, Friendly debate.

1 You really cannot make that claim because we both believe different things. In the end the different branches of christianity are different peoples interpretation of what the bible says. I interpret that the bible says that we are saved by grace through faith, While you interpret otherwise. We still both believe that Jesus died for us, But the details we disagree on.

2 What Martin Luther DID was translate the bible to the common language so that the people would not be told wrongly by the clergy. People should have the freedom to read the bible for themselves. Thats why God gave us the bible.

3 Comparing Islam to Lutheran faith is a very crude judgement. It was actually the catholics who killed former protestants before Luther succeeded.

4 Salvation by faith alone is actually very biblical. If we are not saved by faith alone, What did Jesus do? Lutheranism borrows form catholic traditions because we agree that these are biblical traditions. Having two ideas agree is not a bad thing.

5 We believe that was only human but the spirit of God working through her. Nothing wrong here.

Good points! But for now on can we just stick to the core beliefs instead of the history? That is what matters most.


Thank you for your courtesy and straightforwardness! I will try to refocus my arguments more on the philosophy.

1. I can make the claim, Because even if we have different interpretations, Jesus Christ lived and taught the Gospel directly to his Apostles. The branch of Lutheranism, However, Is unique to a single man who split away from the rest of the Church. Different interpretations may exist, But not all are equally valid because God's truth is the only objective truth (John 15:6).

2. Translation of the Bible to the common language has to be done carefully, Under the auspices of the hierarchy of the church to give guidance and wisdom. An ecumenical purpose itself does not warrant personal interpretation of scripture without oversight (Matt. 5:18, Rev. 22:18-19)

3. I know Catholics killed former protestants, And I don't condone it. My point is that the birth of Lutheranism very much matched the birth of Islam, Only in the Western world (a man becomes a monk, Becomes disillusioned, Goes into the wilderness to have an epiphany, Returns to his country to sack cities in the name of a new ideology that gets made up along the way). It is a harsh judgment, But I believe it's an important and valid one.

4. Solus fideli is anti-biblical among different authorities within scripture, Including Christ Himself. It isn't enough that Christ died and we believe it, We are actually called to follow Him (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) If "faith" as a mere belief exists without good works, It is dead (James 2:14). Sins of a serious or frequent enough nature are enough to condemn someone (1 Chron. 13:10, Acts 5:1-10, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Cor. 11:29). Penance and rejection of sin is also required for salvation (Acts 2:38). Lutheranism is evangelical, But the intent of being ecumenical before true to the Gospel slips through when it adopts salvation by faith alone. Even many of "the elect" are not saved (Matt. 7:13, Matt. 24:24).

Martin Luther's view on the doctrine was especially heretical, Even against Christ. He wrote that "Faith is the principle point and the highest commandment which includes all others in itself, " (WA 36, 365) and that "Rather, Faith shall be the master over love, And love shall yield to it" (WA 39I, 23). These statements constitute a serious contradiction of scripture and Christ's summary of the law (Deut. 6:5, Mark 12:29-31, Luke 10:25-28) and of St. Paul's characterization of love (1 Cor. 13). This should be even more alarming, As faith/hope/love are distinguished both by Luther and in the Bible, Except Luther inverts the positions of what is repeatedly, Expressly the highest virtue to faith (a virtue in potential, But useless by itself).

5. I will take your word for this, Since there isn't clearly anything to debate regarding Mary for now.

6. Lutheranism rejects Transubstantiation. It does this despite adopting the greater part of its elements and adopting a semantic re-interpretation. An argument from Lutheranism is that the Sacrament is referred to as "bread broken, " but that really only proves the point that the "bread" is sacramentally significant. Christ is also referred to as several other metaphors (Son of Man, King of Kings, Lamb, Word, Spotless Victim, Rabbi, Etc. ). I will not post references.

Protestants ignore the many miracles associated with the Blessed Sacrament, Including the consistent ability to repel demons inhabiting demoniacs when entered into the room of the possessed, Even if the possessed could have no knowledge of the presence.

7. Lutheranism refers to the Eucharist as primarily the result of "The Last Supper" and not the bloody passion, Which even Lutherans will admit is the basis of the faith of their salvation. This also puts another strain on the doctrine of faith alone, Because it is misplaced with a "new" ritual. These doctrines are merely the replacement of God's standards of judgment with man's standards of judgment, Which can be described as the height of arrogance.

(As an underlining of these doctrines, Not primary argument against Lutheranism): I believe it is also telling of Luther's attitudes toward justice: He did not keep his vows, And did not consider himself as owing a real duty of obedience to God or his superiors in the Church.
Debate Round No. 2


Chronosofwisdom forfeited this round.


I assume you missed the deadline for this round; That's okay, I'll bypass it.
Debate Round No. 3


Chronosofwisdom forfeited this round.


Thank you for a friendly debate.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by cfossedal 3 years ago
@Chronosofwisdom No worries. Maybe we can hold it again sometime.
Posted by Chronosofwisdom 3 years ago
So sorry, My computer broke down, I wish I could've been able to debate this. . .
Posted by cfossedal 3 years ago
@billsands That's so true. . . Why don't you go off and lose that argument to the ghost of Marilyn Monroe?
Posted by Chronosofwisdom 3 years ago
That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
its so funny when crazy people argue over whose invisible friend has the biggest penis
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff half of the rounds. That's poor conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.