different Protestant...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paris_Blues
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini wrote:
Click to expand...
Perhaps not in your view, perhaps not in the view of the Catholic Church (since Trent). But in Luther’s view there were [second-class scriptures], and as Lutheran Student points out there were plenty of people in the previous tradition to support him on this one.There were so many opinions about which writings were Scripture and which were not that the Catholic Church had to settle the matter in council, where questions have always been dealt with from the very beginning of the Church (see the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15). Neither Jerome nor any other early Christian writer decided the canon --the Catholic Church did. In obedience, Jerome translated the Vulgate, based on the canon decreed by the Council of Rome, at the personal request of Pope Damusus I.

In 1522-34 Luther, in his megalomania, thought God appointed him to evaluate and approve or discard sacred books that had been designated as Scripture since the original canon was named in 382. Such appalling audacity!

I’d like to know your explanation as to exactly what Luther’s point was in removing eleven books and placing them at the back of his German translation of the Bible since you say it was not to show his disdain for them – in spite of what his prefaces say! He dissed the so-called “apocrypha” but not Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, even though he treated them exactly the same?

JMJ Jay
 
Hello Everyone!

Well, let me get down to addressing the things that I have left unanswered for the sake of time or research. John Ennis says in post #79:

And with Cyprian; in the same letter you cite, he says, “For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases…if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition.”

Exactly. If we return to the source we will find the truth. What is that source? Christ himself and the Holy Scriptures. I repeat that I have found nothing in them to support Catholic views on Mary as a co-redeemer, purgatory, veneration of saints, etc. Do you really think that the apostles in Scripture would have believed in these things and not mentioned them anywhere in the twenty-seven books?

I have also been reading the writings of the fathers for about 2 hours every day to see if they really subscribed to such things. So far, I have found nothing that really contradicts with Confessional Lutheran theology, and nothing to support the aforementioned doctrines of the modern Catholic Church. My books already have hundreds of post-it notes sticking out to mark pages that I believe to be distinctly anti-Catholic theology. I shall try to employ them reasonably when you return, John, but let me share with you just this one which I found interesting. It was written by Vincent of Lerins. (Comm., 3:7-8, trans. NPNF, 2nd ser., XI, pp. 132-133)

“What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced to any fraud of novelty.”

To St. Vincent of Lerins it surely seemed that the one church on earth could surely not depart from the truth of Scripture during his time. If only he could have seen the extreme changes that would eventually take place. He did have a hint of it, though, which is why he allowed for men to break from the mainstream church to follow the gospel originally taught to Christians, that is salvation full and free. It looks to me as though St. Vincent believed in holding to the tradition of teachings as opposed to holding onto the men in a succession.

This is all vital, if occasionally tedious. Your point that, the closer you look at the early church, the more it resembles Luther’s creed, is fundamental. It was the first question I asked when my own faith was challenged by my in-laws: “How could the Church have got it wrong for 15 centuries, till Luther finally got it right?”

It’s like I said, John, I remain convinced that there was always a faithful remnant. After all, it wasn’t until after the Reformation that the Catholic Church sealed such issues as the Apocrypha and justification by works. (Council of Trent) It looks as though someone was trying to keep their political prestige, eh? Say “hi” to your in-laws for me John.
 
DianJo Said,

Heresy has existed as long as time itself but because heresy exists doesn’t mean we shut the doors of the Church because she might teach something that is infected with heresy. On the contrary, she will fight even harder to make sure that the truth is preserved. The bible IS A TRADITION of the Church.****
Please read the above statement by Vincent of Lerins on matters of heresy, DianJo. I believe that you find, as the early Christians did, that when heresy infects a portion of the church it is necessary to separate yourself from that heresy, for the preservation of faith. I had always thought that this would be the Catholic point of view, too. As far as your assessment of The Bible as a tradition of the Church, I say “Yes!” The Bible came about through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the careful, guiding hand of God in the early Christian church. So now there are things found in the doctrine of the church that are not found in Scripture, what are we to say? Have things really remained the same?

The bible cannot and never will contradict Tradition because the bible came from that Tradition. The books of the bible were measured against the Tradition of the Apostles and the Old Testament scripture. To suggest that we should no longer trust the Traditions of the church for this reason is ludicrous.
Hmm. That’s an interesting statement, Diana. Scripture cannot contradict ‘tradition’? In this case I am assuming you mean tradition as taught today by the Catholic Church? Well then I refer you back a few posts to the challenge I made. Show me in Scripture where God supports Mary as co-redeemer, veneration of saints, righteousness by works, etc. John Ennis, to whom I originally issued a similar challenge regarding apostolic succession, responded that he could not prove it since I didn’t believe in the Fathers as truly authoritative. The challenge, however, is still open to anyone.
I still am thankful for your kind rebuke and forgiveness, Diana, I just wanted to respond to these items before we got too far down the line.
 
Katholikos stated reaffirmed John Ennis’ statement that Luther removed the Book of James and Jude along with the OT Apocrypha to the back of the Bible. In this case they are correct. He did it because he had a great deal of skepticism about their canonicity. He arrived at this idea through a number of different reasons, the primary being that he did not understand what James was truly saying. My research has revealed that many clergy in the Pre-Reformation Catholic Church felt the same way, as they did about the Apocrypha. I have yet to find out when the NT books were placed back into the NT, or by whom. John Ennis suggested that it was done by Philip Melancthon. This would not surprise me in the least, since Melancthon often was often a voice of reason to Luther, (who, I admit, tended to get a bit worked up. He admitted the same thing.) Neither would it surprise me if Luther himself restored it to the NT, once he had realized it’s true content. Here is a quote:
Luther sees a contradiction between Paul and James, though he did become aware of the solution. Roland Bainton has pointed out, “Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting a reconciliation. ‘Faith,’ he wrote, ‘is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith’”[*[51] Paul Althaus agrees: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith[ii][52] In The Disputation Concerning JustificationFaith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead**Therefore, dead faith justifies* The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works[iii]%between%%between% %between%http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther and the canon 2.htm#a6 http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther and the canon 2.htm ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=416850#_edn1)
 
Katholikos said,

“The so-called “Apocrypha” (erroneous Protestant terminololgy) were part of the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint, which the Church inherited from Jesus and the Apostles.”

It is true that the Apocryphal books were part of the Greek Septuagint, and yet interesting to note that NONE of them are quoted by the apostles in the NT, despite hundreds of different OT quotes including at some from EVERY other book. By reading the writings of the apostles, it would look as though they didn’t give them much credit, either. Although I have read very little of the Apocrypha, does my memory serve me correctly when I say that they make no claim to inspiration, or references to the coming Messiah?

During the winter months of 1512 to 1513, when he was reading the Epistle to the Romans, the great enlightenment of Sola Fide came to Luther. It was a completely novel doctrine, new to him and new to the world. The Apostles did not teach it; consequently, the Catholic Church has never taught it. I maintain that little green men live on the moon.

Katholikos, you’d better run and tell that to the church fathers:

Chysostom:

“True wisdom is the gospel, the means of salvation through the cross of Christ. The perfect are those who believe. They are indeed “perfect” because they know that all human things are utterly helpless, and therefore they ignore them, being convinced that they have nothing to gain from them. This is what true believers are like.” Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 7.1.

Theodoret of Cyr:

“The law condemned sinners, but grace receives them and justifies them by faith. It leads them to holy baptism and grants them forgiveness of sins.” Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 303. Migne PG 83:395

Didymus the Blind:

“It is not we, but He who enables our faith, accepting us and judging us by it.” Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church. NTA 15:24

Augustine:

“If the belief is correct that circumcision served instead of baptism in the saints of old, (OT) What shall be said of those who believed God before this was commanded, except that they pleased him by faith, because as it was written in Hebrews “Without faith it is impossible to please God”? Letter to Dardanus 187.34. FC 30:248

Fulgentius:

“For the grace of justification is given in the present time, but the grace of glorification is saved as a future grace. The one is of faith, the other of sight. Paul says that now, “We walk by faith, not sight.” What the saints believe now, then they will see.” To Monimus I 11:5. FC 95:202

I will address this again later with Scripture passages.
 
Traditional Ang asked,

“And, with that doctrine in mind, how do you derive the doctirnes such as Christ’s Consubstantiality to the Father or the Trinity without Recourse to the Creeds created by that same Universal Church in Council?”

Same place the early Christian church got it from:

Jesus says,

“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” John 15:26

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19

“I and the Father are one***.***” John 10:30

And Scripture also says,

“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.” Genesis 1:26

“May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of ***the Holy Spirit ***be with you all.” 2 Corinthians 13:14

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4

“There is no God but one.” 1 Corinthians 8:4

Lutherans accept the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and Athenasian Creed as being doctrinally sound because they are rooted in Scripture.
 
Traditional Ang said:

The Universal Church, which was responsible for maintaining the Gospel, the Creeds, and all of the other part of our Faith managed to stay whole and entire with the exception of one rather nasty schism for 1400 years. That was under Scripture + Tradition under the Teaching Authority of the Church given and GUARANTEED by the Holy Spirit.

Since then, under “SOLO SCRIPTURA”, you’ve managed to form some 400 PROTESTANT denominations of various types and flavors, and that’s not including those who deny the Divinity and Resurection of Jesus Christ:

Traditional Ang, please cite where in Scripture the Holy Spirit guaranteed that the one truth would stay in the church that today calls itself “Catholic”? I still maintain that you are putting earthly things above heavenly things by assuming that God guaranteed that the true interpretation of Scripture would never fade away from the Catholic Church. Last I heard, earth was sinful, moth and rust destroy. That’s why we’ve gotta keep on our feet as Christians and be very aware of what we are being taught. Like the Bereans. The one true church is the one that is the bride of Christ, the invisible. Nobody responded to my last reference:

“"Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Luke 17:20-21

Do Catholics really believe that they are going to be the only denomination in heaven? Is God really going to ask me for my “Roman Catholic Membership Card” when I arrived at the pearly gates? All because I “departed from” the earthly line of bishops supposedly starting at St. Peter?
 
“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” Matthew 3:7-10

What does John mean when he says these things? The Pharisees and Sadducees were some of the most “righteous” people in the whole Jewish community. They attended church zealously and kept laws that were not even in the Mosaic Law. If anyone was producing “fruits,” they were. The problem was that their fruits were not centered on the Messiah (Christ), that is, they weren’t a result of love & faith. They trusted that they had it all right because they had Abraham as their father. Without drawing a direct comparison, I would encourage you to be careful and not simply trust that you have the correct faith solely because you have Peter in “your line” of clergy.

That said, I do not think that the large amount of denominations can be credited to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Rather, the blame lies on those who divorced themselves from Scripture, like the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the like. Many of these denominations have stayed clearly from the truth, leading others away with them. Often groups of people who once had the truth have compromised it for the sake of “unity,” (e.g. Most of the synods that now make up the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America compromised chief Lutheran doctrines when they merged. Now the ELCA denies Scripture’s complete authority, and views it as more, “guidelines”. This is obviously not because they subscribed to Sola Scriptura, but because they have departed from it.) Believe me, the divided state of Christ’s earthly church is certainly a sad thing for me, too. But what is more important, a false sense of unity with doctrinal compromise? Or the saving truth of Christ’s gospel? The question is rhetorical.
 
Diana said,

Also the work “justified” (dikaiow) is the same word Paul uses for justification in Rom. 4:3 in regard to Abraham - so Protestants cannot argue James is not referring to “justification” in James 2:24 unless they argue Paul wasn’t in Rom. 4:3 either.

Diana, thou art a testament unto thyself. Please read my Luther quote to Katholikos in this sequence of postings. Also read the website that I cited for that quote. Are you suggesting that James is contradicting Paul? Why that’s what Luther thought originally, too! I would like to post Paul’s words again for the sake of those who haven’t read them before. Romans Chapter 4:

“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”a]

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 4&version=31;#fen-NIV-28016bfen-NIV-28016b”)]

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
 
13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring–not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed–the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”d] 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead–since he was about a hundred years old–and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness–for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. “
 
DianJo said,

You cite Eph. 2:8. I’ll cite Eph. 2: 8 and 9. Paul teaches that faith in the root of justification and that faith excludes “works of the law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This must be true because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not grace. But faith alone does not justify.

Well, let’s look at the verse. Firstly, 8 and 9,”For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– not by works, so that no one can boast.” And you interpret this as meaning only that faith comes first? I agree that faith comes first, before works, but that’s not the first thing that I see in this passage. I see that faith is what saves, apart from works. Let’s look at verse 10. “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Now we can conclude that faith comes first, and works bear testament to faith. For the moment we are brought to faith we (1) receive God’s salvation and we are (2) created in Christ to do good works. It is not necessary to do one good work before receiving salvation. However, good works testify to the existence of faith.
 
I ask you, in Catholic doctrine, how many good works are needed to obtain salvation? When are you sure that you have done enough? What constitutes a good work? I tell you that good works are needed in a Christian life to bear witness of faith to others. (Matthew 5:16) They are needed in a Christian life because a true Christian wants to live his life according to the God’s will. They are needed in a Christian’s life because a Christian wants to offer them up as a fragrant offering to the Lord. Not in order to earn salvation, put because salvation has already been earned. It is in these humble gifts that the Lord takes joy, gifts given with a believing heart. Why would God come to earth, live under the temptation of Satan, die at human hands and conquer death without paying the full atonement? Do you think he really wants the stinking heap that people offer him in order to try and earn heaven? NO! The only satisfactory offering is the one Christ offered. Why are you not willing to accept that your debt is paid?

Heb. 11:6 - Faith is indeed the minimum requirement without which we cannot please God. This is just the beginning of the process leading toward justification.

How can you reach this conclusion by reading Hebrews 11:6? Read the whole of Hebrews 11, it is a beautiful reading on the assurance we have received through faith.

It’s the doers who are justified, not the hearers. …] See Rom. 2-13.

I’ve seen Romans 2:13. What good advice to the Romans, eh? I love this book so much. Look at the progression: First, Paul greets the Romans and rejoices with them because of their faith. (1:8) Then he tells them that he is eager to preach the gospel to them again, and that he is not ashamed of the gospel, because “it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel, a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” (1:16, 17) Paul then talks about those who have rejected God’s gospel, and live in arrogance and sin. (1:18-32) He reminds the Roman Christians that they are no better, because while they claim to accept the truth, they still do the same things as those unbelievers! (2:1-16) He is in fact stating that same thing as James ~ it is not possible to serve God and yourself at the same time. Repent!

Paul emphasizes that no man is righteous before God by what he does. (3:10-18) He concludes, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” This consciousness of sin leads into repentance, says Paul, and a return to faith. That is, the law shows us that we are sinful, we feel sincere remorse over our sin, and God forgives us unconditionally, seeing in us the righteousness earned by Christ. Then Paul leads into chapter four, showing how Abraham was justified by faith. Chapter five is more comfort, beginning with, “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.”
 
Acts 10:35 - Peter teaches that anyone who fears the Lord AND does what is right is acceptable to Him. It is both fear and works, not fear alone.

Of course they are! Even demons fear the Lord! To do what is right is to repent and believe solely in Christ as you only way to heaven. Peter also says at the end of his speech: “All the prophets testify about him and everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (vs 43)

I have trouble believing you actually are debating because you have thrown in snide remarks (always unsubstatiated until someone brings it up to you and then you reply with half quotes of Church Fathers, or quotes from Scripture.) in almost every reply.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I admit that I had earlier on thrown in snide remarks. I admit that they were too harsh, and certainly did not bear witness to my faith. I apologized for them, repented and I stand forgiven. I am trying sincerely not to offend anyone anymore. I’m also sorry that you see my quotes as “half-quotes”. Maybe you would care to post the whole quotes sometime.

Since you believe in Sola Scriptura I can ignore every one of your Scripture Quotes because they are meaningless in a debate because of the “Magic” of Sola Scriptura -I can believe as I see fit and you can believe that you interpretation is correct “I am right and you are right” - You can’t question the Holy Spirit, after all I pray and and ask for guidance reading Scripture, and I get a “burning In my bosom” when I read.

You once again misinterpret. Sola Scriptura has nothing to with personal interpretation. There is only one true interpretation of the Bible. That is the one that is found when Scripture is viewed as a whole, all-sufficient document. I hold all denominations that do not grip to the fundamentals of Scripture in error, and I know that by believing exactly as these denominations say, you cannot get to heaven.
 
The beauty of Sola Scriptura and the combination of Sola Fide is that I could be kill a thousand people, commit a thousand Adulteries, and because I am Saved (I declared it) and believe that Scripture says I am saved because of my interpretation (with the Holy Spirit Guiding me.)

I refer you to Romans 3, 4 & 5. I refer you to James 2. Anyone who does these things without remorse surely does not have saving faith in them, because “by their fruits you shall know them.”

I often wonder why protestants, who say they have the spirit and it is He who teaches them, go to Bible Study class. Why do they need to learn from others what the Bible teaches if in fact it is so easily understood?

Because heresy so easily infects an earthly church. It is necessary, therefore, to keep your nose in the Scriptures, to make sure that what you are being taught is correct. By placing emphasis on parts of the Bible, (like James 2), God’s grace can be lost. It is necessary that we take the whole thing into consideration when we explore it for truths. I often wondered why Catholics even study the Bible at all, when they could just have a priest explain it to them. Since the priests are in the Church, and the church is an infallible agent in interpreting Scripture, why own your own Bible?

God’s Blessings all,

See you next weekend.

Lutheran Student,

Nathan
 
Here is a good hymn that confesses the truth of the Bible:
Code: 
                  "Salvation unto Us has Come"
                  by Paul Speratus, 1484-1551
                             Text From:
                     [THE LUTHERAN HYMNAL](http://www.nisbett.com/hymns/tlh/default.htm)
       (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941)



    1. Salvation unto us has come
    By God's free grace and favour;
    Good works cannot avert our doom,
    They help and save us never.
    Faith looks to Jesus Christ alone,
    Who did for all the world atone;
    He is our one Redeemer.

    2. What God did in His Law demand
    And none to Him could render
    Caused wrath and woe on every hand
    For man, the vile offender.
    Our flesh has not those pure desires
    The spirit of the Law requires,
    And lost is our condition.

    3. It was a false, misleading dream
    That God His Law had given
    That sinners should themselves redeem
    And by their works gain heaven.
    The Law is but a mirror bright
    To bring the inbred sin to light
    That lurks within our nature.

    4. From sin our flesh could not abstain,
    Sin held its sway unceasing;
    The task was useless and in vain,
    Our gilt was e'er increasing.
    None can remove sin's poisoned dart
    Or purify our guileful heart,-
    So deep is our corruption.

    5. Yet as the Law must be fulfilled
    Or we must die despairing,
    Christ came and hath God's anger stilled,
    Our human nature sharing.
    He hath for us the Law obeyed
    And thus the Father's vengeance stayed
    Which over us impended.

    6. Since Christ hath full atonement made
    And brought to us salvation,
    Each Christian therefore may be glad
    And build on this foundation.
    Thy grace alone, dear Lord, I plead,
    Thy death is now my life indeed,
    For Thou hast paid my ransom.

    7. Let me not doubt, but trust in Thee,
    Thy Word cannot be broken;
    Thy call rings out, "Come unto Me!"
    No falsehood hast Thou spoken.
    Baptized into Thy precious name,
    My faith cannot be put to shame,
    And I shall never perish.

    8. The Law reveals the guilt of sin
    And makes men conscience-stricken;
    The Gospel then doth enter in
    The sinful soul to quicken.
    Come to the cross, trust Christ, and live;
    The Law no peace can ever give,
    No comfort and no blessing.

    9. Faith clings to Jesus' cross alone
    And rests in Him unceasing;
    And by its fruits true faith is known,
    With love and hope increasing.
    Yet faith alone doth justify,
    Works serve thy neighbor and supply
    The proof that faith is living.

    10. All blessing, honour, thanks, and praise
    To Father, Son, and Spirit,
    The God that saved us by His grace,-
    All glory to His merit!
    O Triune God in heaven above,
    Who hast revealed Thy saving love,
    Thy blessed name be hallowed.
 
Lutheran Student, methinks thou protest to much.

Is only there one interpretation of Scripture? Every Protestant Church has its own interpretation -and they all claim to have the truth. Remember Private Interpretation is the foundation of sola scriptura.

I wouldn’t bother trying to pick out your misquotes as Kathlikos has been doing a fine job of doing just that.

Speaking of misquotes, I misquoted your Church Founder let me set the record Straight.
“13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.” This is:Let Your Sins Be Strong:
A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg

“No sin can separate us, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” That is the beauty of sola fide and sola Scriptura on your Church’s Founders lips in a nutshell. You can lie, cheat, steal, kill, and so on - as long you have said the sinners prayer once, you can sin because Jesus got’s you covered (your sins that is)

LS wrote
“You once again misinterpret. Sola Scriptura has nothing to with personal interpretation. There is only one true interpretation of the Bible. That is the one that is found when Scripture is viewed as a whole, all-sufficient document. I hold all denominations that do not grip to the fundamentals of Scripture in error, and I know that by believing exactly as these denominations say, you cannot get to heaven.”

How is it that “I hold all denominations that do not grip to the fundamentals of Scripture in error” Sounds like you have declared youself the AUTHORITY (New name Pope Lutheran Student the first) and hold the absolute and perfect interpretation of Scripture.

You also responded: I refer you to Romans 3, 4 & 5. I refer you to James 2. Anyone who does these things without remorse surely does not have saving faith in them, because “by their fruits you shall know them.”

Well I see the Fruits of Luther all around us today and as you said “believing exactly as these denominations say, you cannot get to heaven”

Luther started sola scriptura and sola fide together - see where it leads – Sort of like a mini tower of babel except instead of languages we have many religions from one.

As I stated before, It is useless to sit here and Sling verses back and forth with someone who believes whole heartedly in Sola Scripture. Accordingly you are your own Interpreter of Scripture (you see it through the lens of your particular religion). I am sure that if a Jehovahs Witness, a Baptist, Lutheran, Mormom, Presbyterian, Church of God, and a Unitarian sat down in the same room and were handed a sheet of paper with all the Scripture quotes you have provided in these threads and each was asked to write down what they thought was the correct interpretation and or meaning, we would come of with 7 different interpretations. Sure they might agree on some of the verses but not all, they will each interprett as the “Holy Spirit” guides them. After all Scripture is self interpreting to you and them.

Question: Are state sponsored Lutheran churches in Europe (See Sweden) Biblical?

Have a nice day.
 
Question: Are state sponsored Lutheran churches in Europe (See Sweden) Biblical?

No, not really. These churches have accepted $$ from the government, and in so doing have subjected the Word of God to the dictations of men. Sound familiar? They have quite obviously departed from sound interpretation.

This shall be my last posting on this forum. I feel that I have born faithful witness, learned alot, and have been confirmed in faith. I shall let the hymn I posted stand as the confession of that faith.

To those who still believe that you can save yourselves ~ Good Luck. In the meantime, I cling wholly to the cross of Christ, who fulfilled the law on my behalf.

Yours,
Lutheran Student
Nathan
 
I hear preachers today talk about being under submission to those set in authority over them in the body of Christ and wonder how it is that they can even talk about such a thing after having become part of the very movement that removed itself from the divinely appointed authority instead of remaining within the church to help fix the problems.
Click to expand...
Easily answered. When Protestant preachers (esp non-denom ones) talk about submitting to authority, they mean submitting to them and agreeing with everything they say.

And to Booklover, who has yet to see one Protestant here who really wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches, now you’ve seen one. That would be me. I know (well, okay, I don’t know personally) how disappointing, damaging, and infuriating it can be when you Catholics are bashed up one side and down the other by people that don’t know how to act. But this whiny, martyr-y, “oh oh…the nasty ol’ Protestants are SO mean to us” thing is getting a little boring.
 
LutheranStudent wrote: Exactly. If we return to the source we will find the truth. What is that source? Christ himself and the Holy Scriptures. I repeat that I have found nothing in them to support Catholic views on Mary as a co-redeemer, purgatory, veneration of saints, etc. Do you really think that the apostles in Scripture would have believed in these things and not mentioned them anywhere in the twenty-seven books?
Click to expand...
(1) The Apostles wrote very little of the NT.

(2) The NT is not an instruction book in Christianity. It is the literary record of the spiritual life of the People of God – the New Israel, the Catholic Church – during the first 100 years or so of
its existence.

(3) The Bible does not contain all that Jesus and the Apostles taught.

(4) Christianity is not based on the Bible, nor on the NT. Historic Christianity is the sum total of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

(5) The Bible did not exist as we know it until the end of the fourth century.

(6) Some of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition got written down and became the NT. Some did not and has been preserved in other ways by the Guardian of the Faith – the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

(7) The NT is a morror-image of the teaching of the Catholic Church, whose Faith comes to us through the Apostles. The Church established the canon of Scripture. Only those writings which reflected the teachings of the Church were accepted into the canon.

(8) Therefore, any interpretation that does not comport with the teachings of the Catholic Church is a misinterpretation.

Do you really think that the Catholic Church would be so stupid as to canonize writings that oppose her teaching? Sorry, LS, your logic fails. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are 16th century abberations.

Speaking of logic, I recommend that you read Logic and the Foundations of Protestantism by Brian Harrison at www.chnetwork.org. At the home page, click on “conversion stories” - then scoll down to his name. This is a website for Protestant clergy (and others) who are interested in the Catholic Faith.

Jay Damien
P.S. While you’re at CHN, I invite you to read my conversion story as well:) .
 
Katholikos wrote: During the winter months of 1512 to 1513, when he was reading the Epistle to the Romans, the great enlightenment of Sola Fide came to Luther. It was a completely novel doctrine, new to him and new to the world. The Apostles did not teach it; consequently, the Catholic Church has never taught it.
Lutheran Student wrote: Katholikos, you’d better run and tell that to the church fathers
Click to expand...
LutheranStudent, you have given us a fine example of proof-texting. Your efforts are wasted. The Catholic Church indeed teaches that faith is necessary for salvation – but the doctrine that Faith Alone is necessary for salvation is a heresy.

Here’s the origin of Sola Fide: "His [Luther’s] “thunderbolt” idea that faith alone was sufficient for salvation came, in his own words, as ‘knowledge the Holy spirit gave to me on the privy in the tower.’ " William Manchester, A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance (Little, Brown & Company, 1993), p. 140, quoted in TRIUMPH, The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church – A 2,000-Year History, H.W. Crocker III, Prima Publishing Division of Random House, Roseville, CA 2001, p. 237.

JMJ Jay
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top