What is totally ludicrous, Bene, is your assumptions and projections into what someone else is saying. On the contrary, no assumption was made here.
Guano, if you will only read slower, pay more attention to what is written and not allow anger to cloud your reason you will avoid replies like this.
There is such an unsaid assumption in this statement: “*It may have been the work of the devil but God certainly allowed it and **from this ***emanated the propagation of the Word like never before…”
By stating it thus, she is basically saying that it is the reformation that caused the spread of the Word like never before.
She misses the fact that the Word or more rightly the fullness of Truth was being propagated well before the reformation… by the Church.
responding this way, you reject the teaching of your own Church. If you recall the Easter Vigil, you will remember that the sin of Adam and Eve is called “oh necessary evil”. The Church is not saying that the evil that happened was “good”, but that God used it for his better purposes.
I reject nothing. You are responding this way because you did not read my post properly and cut it at the wrong points yet again.
If you read it twice in its entirety and tried to fully comprehend before you started firing, you would not make such a disjointed post where you make this point here when I have already made the same point towards the end of my post which you also acknowledged.
God allowed the Fall, God allowed the Crucifixion of His Only Son, and brought good out of these evils. Miranda is right on! And she is making no faulty assumptions. God could have propogated His Word however He chose. ** He chose to use The Reformation to make good.** He could have redeemed us however He wished, but He chose to die on the cross.
Oh really? If you reply this way - “
God chose to use The Reformation” - you are in effect saying that God willed the reformation i.e. chose the reformation as the vehicle by which He will have his Word proclaimed. So you are saying that God actively willed evil in order to do good.
The correct formulation is this: knowing that man will sin and bring about the reformation, He allowed it because He can overcome that evil brought about by this event.
He chose to die on the cross but He did not actively choose the reformation. To say so is to say that God actively willed evil, actively willed the sundering of His Church. Which makes Christ sound idiotic – praying for unity when all along He had planned to wreck that unity.
No one but you has suggested this is the case.
Somehow I knew that the sense of that one will just whizz past you.
No one has said otherwise.
And did I say that someone has?
The point of that quote was to highlight the bad logic in mirandajb’s post.
This is the faulty assumption, since there have been heresies since the beginning of the Church!
Indeed there has and through the earlier centuries the Church has squashed these heresies. Very different to how it is now. The Protestant’s don’t look to the Church so the heresies cannot be squashed. They’ve been allowed to spread like wildfire.
Be very careful Guano because you are almost arguing against your self, against the very things that you have painstakingly driven home to your opponents in these forums.
The teaching of right doctrine does not mean everyone accepts it. If there were not a paucity of right doctrine being taught in Germany at the time of Luther, then there would not have been 95 Theses.
A paucity of right doctrine? Did you really mean to write that?
What right doctrines were missing then, during Luther’s time? What doctrines should there have been to augment this terrible lack?
