A Historical Dare to Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have seen the many excellent attempts by others to explain to you how ALL the teachings of Paul and others harmonize. But you continue to embrace that spirit of fear and service by ‘the letter’ Paul spoke of in Rom. 8. That is your choice. We hold that the Scriptures do in fact teach that the saved endure to the end. Nowhere does it say that a saved person is cast away. You do not discern the spiritual growth Paul is longing for when he speaks personally, RATHER THAN some uncertain fight to keep God from rejecting his sonship some day. He said he was confident of the opposite. Luther may have added ‘alone’, but he didn’t create the several passages that say a man is justfied by faith apart from any works of the law. But you choose to ignore that. I wonder why? You DO know that the threat of eternal doom does not generate purity of life, don’t you? It does the opposite, my friend. And that you probably know personally. God has chosen a way foreign to the minds of men. It is the way of grace. Costly to Him, but incredibly free to those who will take it. You haven’t seen that grace yet, however. I pray you will. It is Amazing Grace. Your kind of ‘grace’ could never produce that hymn. Come to think of it, your kind of grace doesn’t produce many hymns at all. Ever wonder why? Look at my signature and tell me how God could possibly undo what Paul says has already happened to Christians. There is a lot to learn yet, isn’t there?
God Bless
Why do you continue to ignore scripture and repeat your dogmatic assertions?

You can’t just pick and choose the scripture that fits yoru dogma, you must accept it all and then harmonize it as the message of God to us.

Please tell me why you feel entitled to ignore the scripture I posted.

Do you believe that these verses mean something different than what an unbiased reading would communicate?

Try reading them without bias:

Hebrews 10:26-27 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.”

Hebrews 10:29 “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit?”

1 Chronicles 28:9 “If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you leave Him, He will cast you off forever”.

1 Timothy 1:19 “Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and their faith has been shipwrecked”.

John 15:1-2 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit”.

John 15:4-6 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned”.

10"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love;
 
Katrina5;:
If it weren’t for the Catholic Church, they wouldn’t even HAVE a Bible!
The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One proves beyond any shadow of doubt that that claim is utterly and absolutely false.
Martin Luther was a Catholic monk trying to “reform” what he saw as evil. He didn’t reform anything, he started a new church, he broke the Apostolic succession.
He started a new church after both of the following happened:
a) The the pope declared that simony was acceptable and justified;
b) The pope excommunicated him.
Henry VIII broke off because the Pope wouldn’t grant him a divorce.
A divorce that under then current canon law would have been, and should have been granted.
Calvin and Knox were politicians who were involved in getting rid of Queen Mary, not really any dogma there, other than predestination.
TULIP demonstrates otherwise.
From there, we have Puritans, who wanted to strip the church of art and beauty.
(Exodus 34:17 NAB D) "You shall not make for yourselves molten gods.
(Exodus 20:4 NAB D) You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
(Deuteronomy 5:8 NAB D) You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;

Are the basis for their practice. (And if you don’t recognise them, those are from the three sets of the Ten Commandments that are found in the Torah. It is fairly straightforward to find them repeated in the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Writings.

jonathon
 
Benjamin8o8;:
Jesus did NOT speak Greek.
That is sheer conjecture.

Given the dominance of Greek and Latin, the odds are that He could speak at least three, and probably four languages.(I’ll grant that being able to fluently speak, read and write four languages still qualifies one as being illiterate.)

jonathon
 
Your opinion doesn’t fit with the words of Luther. Here was his comment after being criticized for adding the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28.

**
*“If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightaway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” ***(Amic. Discussion, I, 127, “The Facts About Luther” O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p.201).

What Charity!
Alright, friend-- I already said that I was not intending to defend every word of Luther. Shall I find every untoward quote of the bishops, cardinals, indulgence preachers, and popes of the 16th century to start a tit-for-tat?
 
Just a thought here:
What if all children were to have the right and ability to just up and leave their parents before they were of age, simply because they thought their parents were too strict? Such an ability all people have with God, yet God is forgiving. He will take back the prodigal son with open arms. I see the Catholic Church with it’s arms wide open to welcome back our brethren, yet, no matter what changes the Catholic Church makes, it WILL always be about PRIDE. The Catholic Church and the Papacy are very different now, (sorry, Traditionalists, it is.) when discussing the differences that caused any *meaningful *schisms (and yes, there were, IMO) in the first place, yet even if the Catholic CHurch bowed to all demands, it is now about prideful “I’M RIGHT, YOU’RE WRONG, YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER ME” Yet what ***harmful ***authority does the Catholic Church truly have in this age?
What is it about the Catholic Church that hurts anyone’s salvation in this day and age? When you speak of differences and interpretations, it seems more like the main issues are of WORLDLY cares, not the ultimate priority—GOD’S will. Isn’t any comfort or “right” on earth worth sacrificing for your ultimate salvation? Don’t you think it’s your duty to strive to help others be saved too? Don’t you also think helping to save others is part of your responsibility to get yourself saved as well? Why should anyone try to evangelize me then? Why should anyone bother to spread the Gospel or invite people to their church, if whoever is going to be saved has already been pre-selected and determined by God, and He has it all in His hands?
 
That is sheer conjecture.

Given the dominance of Greek and Latin, the odds are that He could speak at least three, and probably four languages.(I’ll grant that being able to fluently speak, read and write four languages still qualifies one as being illiterate.)

jonathon
I agree. Why else would they put “Jesus Christ, King of the Jews” in four languages on the plaque on his cross?
 
Alright, friend-- I already said that I was intended to defend every word of Luther. Shall I find every untoward quote of the bishops, cardinals, indulgence preachers, and popes of the 16th century to start a tit-for-tat?
My point was specifically to Luther’s motivation.

Here’s what I first posted:
Luther, IMO, was primarily motivated by pride. There were problems in the Church at the time, (as there always have been and always will be until the end of our age), but rather than attempt to work through them with an attitude of respect and submission to authority he chose the route of pride and defiance of authority.
To which you responded:
Sadly, your opinion does not coincide with the historical record. If you read Luthers works, and many of the works of his contemporaries, he appeal time and again to peaceful solutions.
I think the quote I provided strongly supports my point while strongly discrediting yours.

The quote I provided gives us a very good look into Luther’s motivations and temperment.

I understand that this is a sensitive issue and I’m not trying to be rude, but I think the case is quite clear.
 
The Roman Catholic Church is equate to the Catholic Church all the other saints wrote about. If it wasnt you should at least point out a date when and where the Roman Church allegedly split off this "Catholic Church" you believe is the TRUE Church. If you fail to do this, then we are just going in circles in here. Catholic Daddy, With Questions, you, and other non-catholic members are just quoting from a Catholic Book (aka the Bible) to attempt to make a point. Lets be serious okay? The Roman Church establiched itself at 33AD in Jerursalem. The mission it carried out is 2009 years old. If you are denying that, then you are not following history (just like the Muslims) and are making no sense. Also, if the Catholic Church is not equate with the Roman Church, where is the Catholic Church then? Are you really going to tell me the gates of hell prevailed against it? Come on man, non-Catholic christians are off-shoots FROM the Roman Catholic Church, not from this “imaginary” Church you are talking about. So let us be honest here, if you claim what you claim, then reply to my topic with HISTORICAL evidence that the Catholic Church from 1st, 4th, 6th century is not the same Roman Church we now have.

Remember: people lie, history dosen`t.
As for historical reference, I would recommend the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volumes one and two-- particularly the writings of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian. Once you’ve chewed your way through that, might want to digest Ambrose, Augustine and Chrysostom… of course, to put things in context, you might want to read Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, too, and in one of the ANF volumes you will find all the procedings and decisions of the 7 ecumenical councils. In and throughout these you will find many a reference to the Catholic Church, and never an equasion of the Roman Church with the totality of the Catholic Church. The Roman Patriarch (and his local diocese) were a part of the larger whole… with others… all the others.

Peace.
 
As for historical reference, I would recommend the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volumes one and two-- particularly the writings of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian. Once you’ve chewed your way through that, might want to digest Ambrose, Augustine and Chrysostom… of course, to put things in context, you might want to read Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, too, and in one of the ANF volumes you will find all the procedings and decisions of the 7 ecumenical councils. In and throughout these you will find many a reference to the Catholic Church, and never an equasion of the Roman Church with the totality of the Catholic Church. The Roman Patriarch (and his local diocese) were a part of the larger whole… with others… all the others.

Peace.
Are you saying that the Lutheran Church was part of this greater whole?
 
Are you saying that the Lutheran Church was part of this greater whole?
I’m saying that confessional Lutheran theology reflects the theology of particular Church Fathers and lies within the legitimate bounds of catholic thought. As the Augsburg Confession notes in its introduction, there is nothing in the Lutheran Confession of the Catholic faith that is unknown or alien to the Fathers.

The Church is alive, and moving through time. We are Christians of our respective traditions, and what has been handed down to us. We can all trace our roots back to the Apostles, though the branches of theology that developed over the two millenia since there time have created differences of opinion and piety.
 
My point was specifically to Luther’s motivation.

Here’s what I first posted:

To which you responded:

I think the quote I provided strongly supports my point while strongly discrediting yours.

The quote I provided gives us a very good look into Luther’s motivations and temperment.

I understand that this is a sensitive issue and I’m not trying to be rude, but I think the case is quite clear.
I agree.

We could also bring up Luther’s attitude regarding the Church’s authority over the Scriptures; his appeal to the German nobility against “Roman tyranny”; His appeal to private revelation; to the books he removed from the New Testament; his statements on how ministers are not to deal with marriage questions; his statements on the irresistibility of sex impulses; on marriage as a purely secular contract; his views on public ministry; on the spiritual priesthood of all the faithful; on his opposition to virginity; on his postion of permitting divorce within marriage; etc., etc., etc.
 
Ah, well… since it is to be a joust of quotations… I’ll submit this as rejoinder:

"Suffer me, I pray you, most excellent Leo, both to plead my own cause, and to accuse your true enemies. I believe it is known to you in what way Cardinal Cajetan, your imprudent and unfortunate, nay unfaithful, legate, acted towards me. When, on account of my reverence for your name, I had placed myself and all that was mine in his hands, he did not so act as to establish peace, which he could easily have established by one little word, since I at that time promised to be silent and to make an end of my case, if he would command my adversaries to do the same. But that man of pride, not content with this agreement, began to justify my adversaries, to give them free licence, and to order me to recant, a thing which was certainly not in his commission. Thus indeed, when the case was in the best position, it came through his vexatious tyranny into a much worse one. Therefore whatever has followed upon this is the fault not of Luther, but entirely of Cajetan, since he did not suffer me to be silent and remain quiet, which at that time I was entreating for with all my might. What more was it my duty to do?

Next came Charles Miltitz, also a nuncio from your Blessedness. He, though he went up and down with much and varied exertion, and omitted nothing which could tend to restore the position of the cause thrown into confusion by the rashness and pride of Cajetan, had difficulty, even with the help of that very illustrious prince the Elector Frederick, in at last bringing about more than one familiar conference with me. In these I again yielded to your great name, and was prepared to keep silence, and to accept as my judge either the Archbishop of Treves, or the Bishop of Naumburg; and thus it was done and concluded. While this was being done with good hope of success, lo! that other and greater enemy of yours, Eccius, rushed in with his Leipsic disputation, which he had undertaken against Carlstadt, and, having taken up a new question concerning the primacy of the Pope, turned his arms unexpectedly against me, and completely overthrew the plan for peace. Meanwhile Charles Miltitz was waiting, disputations were held, judges were being chosen, but no decision was arrived at. And no wonder! for by the falsehoods, pretences, and arts of Eccius the whole business was brought into such thorough disorder, confusion, and festering soreness, that, whichever way the sentence might lean, a greater conflagration was sure to arise; for he was seeking, not after truth, but after his own credit. In this case too I omitted nothing which it was right that I should do…

Here is that enemy of yours, Leo, or rather of your Court; by his example alone we may learn that an enemy is not more baneful than a flatterer. For what did he bring about by his flattery, except evils which no king could have brought about? At this day the name of the Court of Rome stinks in the nostrils of the world, the papal authority is growing weak, and its notorious ignorance is evil spoken of. We should hear none of these things, if Eccius had not disturbed the plans of Miltitz and myself for peace. He feels this clearly enough himself in the indignation he shows, too late and in vain, against the publication of my books. He ought to have reflected on this at the time when he was all mad for renown, and was seeking in your cause nothing but his own objects, and that with the greatest peril to you…

Since then we were bringing about by this disputation nothing but the greater confusion of the cause of Rome, Charles Miltitz for the third time addressed the Fathers of the Order, assembled in chapter, and sought their advice for the settlement of the case, as being now in a most troubled and perilous state. Since, by the favour of God, there was no hope of proceeding against me by force, some of the more noted of their number were sent to me, and begged me at least to show respect to your person and to vindicate in a humble letter both your innocence and my own. They said that the affair was not as yet in a position of extreme hopelessness, if Leo X., in his inborn kindliness, would put his hand to it. On this I, who have always offered and wished for peace, in order that I might devote myself to calmer and more useful pursuits, and who for this very purpose have acted with so much spirit and vehemence, in order to put down by the strength and impetuosity of my words, as well as of my feelings, men whom I saw to be very far from equal to myself–I, I say, not only gladly yielded, but even accepted it with joy and gratitude, as the greatest kindness and benefit, if you should think it right to satisfy my hopes.

Thus I come, most blessed Father, and in all abasement beseech you to put to your hand, if it is possible, and impose a curb to those flatterers who are enemies of peace, while they pretend peace. But there is no reason, most blessed Father, why any one should assume that I am to utter a recantation, unless he prefers to involve the case in still greater confusion. Moreover, I cannot bear with laws for the interpretation of the word of God, since the word of God, which teaches liberty in all other things, ought not to be bound. Saving these two things, there is nothing which I am not able, and most heartily willing, to do or to suffer. I hate contention; I will challenge no one; in return I wish not to be challenged; but, being challenged, I will not be dumb in the cause of Christ my Master. For your Blessedness will be able by one short and easy word to call these controversies before you and suppress them, and to impose silence and peace on both sides–a word which I have ever longed to hear."

It is from Luther’s letter to Pope Leo, at the introduction to his work on Christian Liberty. Here’s a link for the context: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/cclib-1.html
 
I’m saying that confessional Lutheran theology reflects the theology of particular Church Fathers and lies within the legitimate bounds of catholic thought. As the Augsburg Confession notes in its introduction, there is nothing in the Lutheran Confession of the Catholic faith that is unknown or alien to the Fathers.

The Church is alive, and moving through time. We are Christians of our respective traditions, and what has been handed down to us. We can all trace our roots back to the Apostles, though the branches of theology that developed over the two millenia since there time have created differences of opinion and piety.
Please cite from the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers Luther’s teachings regarding baptism, the Eucharist, examples of the liturgical divisions within Lutheranism, rejection of Calvinist predestinarianism, the schisms within Lutheranism regarding divergent ideas of ministry, Luther’s theory of man’s depravity, and Lutheran doctrine on birth control.
 
Just a thought here:
What if all children were to have the right and ability to just up and leave their parents before they were of age, simply because they thought their parents were too strict?
What if the father was a drunk and beat the children and refused to give the children proper clothes and food? Would they not have the right to go elsewhere?
 
Please cite from the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers Luther’s teachings regarding baptism, the Eucharist, examples of the liturgical divisions within Lutheranism, rejection of Calvinist predestinarianism, the schisms within Lutheranism regarding divergent ideas of ministry, Luther’s theory of man’s depravity, and Lutheran doctrine on birth control.
Those citations are rampant throughout the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. I suggest you read them.

Also, I suggest you take information regarding Lutheran faith and tradition from sources friendly to the tradition-- rather than drinking the bathwater of Roman polemicists. I choose not to learn of Roman theology and practice from the Lutheran polemicists, because it is a poor way of putting your neighbor in the best possible light. You might want to take that under advisement.

One quick ammendment-- there is no “Lutheran doctrine of birth control.”
 
I don’t know as much about the Bible as many people on this site (which is one reason I am so fascinated by the Catholic religion…you know how to back yourselves up) but here is my problem. In mybible I have yet to see where it announce Catholicism as the "true church or religion so where do you get that from. Believe me I do look everyting up for myself and if it is in your bible I have axcess to one and would like the book scripture and verse please. If that can be provide I don’t see the point in a debate.
 
As for historical reference, I would recommend the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volumes one and two-- particularly the writings of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian. Once you’ve chewed your way through that, might want to digest Ambrose, Augustine and Chrysostom… of course, to put things in context, you might want to read Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, too, and in one of the ANF volumes you will find all the procedings and decisions of the 7 ecumenical councils. In and throughout these you will find many a reference to the Catholic Church, and never an equasion of the Roman Church with the totality of the Catholic Church. The Roman Patriarch (and his local diocese) were a part of the larger whole… with others… all the others.

Peace.
My brother in Christ, with all due respect, you have not answered my question as I hoped. You gave me a list of books to read instead of providing historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church is a denomination of this alleged TRUE Catholic Church. I asked for literal data. Give me evidence (where, and when) The Roman Catholic Church is an off-shoot instead of the Church that Peter THROUGH Christ established.
 
I’m saying that confessional Lutheran theology reflects the theology of particular Church Fathers and lies within the legitimate bounds of catholic thought. As the Augsburg Confession notes in its introduction, there is nothing in the Lutheran Confession of the Catholic faith that is unknown or alien to the Fathers.

The Church is alive, and moving through time. We are Christians of our respective traditions, and what has been handed down to us. We can all trace our roots back to the Apostles, though the branches of theology that developed over the two millenia since there time have created differences of opinion and piety.
No my brother, you can trace your roots back to the Roman Catholic Church. From there on, you can trace the Church back to the Apostle. Bill gave a historical list of the Church, and its off-shoots. Not one single member refuted that list. it is because people lie, history dosen`t.

I hope I am not sounding pridful, if I am, I honestly dont want it to be like that. I just dont know how else to put it.
 
I don’t know as much about the Bible as many people on this site (which is one reason I am so fascinated by the Catholic religion…you know how to back yourselves up) but here is my problem. In mybible I have yet to see where it announce Catholicism as the "true church or religion so where do you get that from. Believe me I do look everyting up for myself and if it is in your bible I have axcess to one and would like the book scripture and verse please. If that can be provide I don’t see the point in a debate.
That’s part of the issue, friend. The Scriptures speak of the Church, the “ekklesia”-- that it is One as the Body of Christ, that it will endure to the end of time, and that it will cover the whole world. The Greek term for “catholic” is not found in Scripture-- it is a tool of the Fathers to describe the collective reality of what the Scriptures teach about the Church. No particular Church can take that title on themselves, but any particular Church can reflect what is catholic.

Hence my previous arguements (and those of better theologians than myself) that to append the term “Roman” to the term “catholic” is misleading. The Roman Christians may, if they remain Scriptural and faithful to the Apostolic teachings, be catholic… but being catholic is in no way constrained only to the particular church of the Romans. Any ekklesia, or gathering, of Christians may be catholic… and they may not be… depending on how they keep the Apostolic doctrine of the Scriptures. The term catholic reflects universality and orthodoxy… and Lutherans and Romans (and many others) seek to remain living and vibrant members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Peace.
 
The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One proves beyond any shadow of doubt that that claim is utterly and absolutely false.
You must learn about the History of the Bible. There was a Church when they compiled the books of the Bible. That Church was not babptist, methodist, calvanist, JW, Mormon. It was the Catholic Church. Yes, you don`t have to accept that FACT, but it was the Catholics that compiled the books together by the power of the Holy Spirit.
He started a new church after both of the following happened:
a) The the pope declared that simony was acceptable and justified;
b) The pope excommunicated him.
Being a Pope dosent make you "autotmatically" Holy. Thus, it gives no reason for anybody to start a new church. Jesus said Himself the Church weill not prevail against hell. A bad pope or an unholy pope dosent have the power from the evil side to destroy the Church that Jesus found.
A divorce that under then current canon law would have been, and should have been granted.
Still gives no reason for somebody to break the Apostle succession and start their own church.
(Exodus 34:17 NAB D) "You shall not make for yourselves molten gods.
(Exodus 20:4 NAB D) You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
(Deuteronomy 5:8 NAB D) You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;

Are the basis for their practice. (And if you don’t recognise them, those are from the three sets of the Ten Commandments that are found in the Torah. It is fairly straightforward to find them repeated in the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Writings.

jonathon
We fullfill scriptures bro.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top