R
rfk
Guest
Thanks so much, the Steve Ray quote was the one I was thinking about. Perfect!
- Status
M
milimac
Guest
I’ve bookmarked your links, glanced at them, and may eventually get to reading them. Perhaps you should’ve cooled down a bit before posting. I wonder if you really think many Catholics will be motivated to read your research after being told you don’t take them seriously and that they are desperate.
And this after you devote section C of your second document complaining about Mr. Armstrong’s ad hominem attacks on you. Have you not learned from this to treat others as you wish to be treated? If this is what happens to people who spend a lot of time doing apologetics, I will seriously be wary of how much time I devote to it.
J
jimmy
Guest
I find it amazing that some protestants put the teachings(herecies) of Martin Luther ahead of the apostles teachings and the teachings of the fathers of the first few centuries.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Not the Jewish people. He was quite tolerant of them. He was not fond and was down right violent towards practicing rabbis and Judaism. This was not unique to Martin Luther at the time as most Catholics are very aware.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Luther said many things in many different ways, although often in very earthy words. Also if you look back at the posts you need to know when he speaks metaphorically. With the blood and wine comment, of course he is talking about the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When he talks about murderers and the like it is because he did not distinguish between sins. If one has made up his mind to sin than the nature of the sin is irrelevant – he has chosen to sin. “If you are going to sin, sin boldly.”
Movies and books have portrayed Luther in many ways. It is important that one balance everything with a dichotomy of resources. We should look at his own words but we must also be very careful to understand the context in which they were spoken or written. Look at the audience to who he was speaking and also look at what point in his life he made the comment. Even the most devout follower of Luther will admit that in his later years he was displaying signs of organic brain disorder (senility and dementia.)
Anyways here is a quote that shows that I do not only pick from his better words,
Referring to Romanist/Papist legalism:
Movies and books have portrayed Luther in many ways. It is important that one balance everything with a dichotomy of resources. We should look at his own words but we must also be very careful to understand the context in which they were spoken or written. Look at the audience to who he was speaking and also look at what point in his life he made the comment. Even the most devout follower of Luther will admit that in his later years he was displaying signs of organic brain disorder (senility and dementia.)
Anyways here is a quote that shows that I do not only pick from his better words,
Referring to Romanist/Papist legalism:
H
hlgomez
Guest
“If I study Luthers work I would cease to be a Protestant.”
(just my own quote)
Pio
(just my own quote)
Pio
S
Shibboleth
Guest
hlgomez said:“If I study Luthers work I would cease to be a Protestant.”
(just my own quote)
Pio
Yes and no… depends on what you mean by this comment. If one only studied Luther and his work and put it at par or above scripture than yes one would not be considered evangelical protestant. At least a misguided one anyway…
If one studied the works of Luther and others and used the scriptures as a measure of their worth then they would very much be an evangelical protestant.
Always keep in mind that Luther is not Protestantism or Lutheranism. If one disagrees with Luther, and many if not all current Lutherans do on certain aspects, that does not mean that they are not Lutheran.
A
Alberich
Guest
I’ll take a stand on this one, so long as you understand I am only giving my own opinion…
Scripture and a sound mind are insufficient for salvation. Why? It is simple. If these were all that were available, then there would be no reason to believe that Scripture were divinely inspired.
Why should anyone come to the conclusion that the Christian Bible (putting aside differences between 66 and 73 books) is a divine instrument of salvation? What is unique to it that, prima facie, it should be considered divinely inspired where the Qu’ran is not? How would a person distinguish the Christian Bible from a compilation of Egyptian mythology, other than by different stories? Is there anything inherent to the Bible that would tell us that Jesus is the true Lord–not just a good yarn–whereas we would end up believing that Osiris and Set are nothing more than interesting historical constructs? I think you can see what I mean…
So what is it that sets Christianity apart? Well, one thing is Sacred Tradition. We have a set of Apostles that were physically with Jesus, both pre and post-resurrection. We have an unbroken lineage from those very men to the bishops of today through ordination. We have the Bible, yes, but we also have the oral teachings that have been passed down from the Apostles even to the current Church.
As no other religion (none that I am aware of, at least) can claim this, it would seem that this Sacred Tradition plays–or should play–quite a role in Christianity. And that is why I don’t believe that nothing save the Bible and a sound mind are necessary for salvation.
Cheers,
Fred
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Why do you believe that the Church and sacred history are divinely inspired? Other religions claim this also. Why not follow them? You believe something to be true because someone outside of you says that it is true? It comes down to the Grace of God through the Holy Spirit. Without it we are lost – it gives us the faith to believe and the works that stem from that…
A
Alberich
Guest
I agree–it is all about the grace of God. Nonetheless, if all you have is a sound mind and a stack of books–the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad Gita, Marcus Aurelius’s "Meditations, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” … How do you know from where this grace is coming? Do you see any problem with somehow feeling that you have a feeling of grace, but misattributing it to Zaphod Beeblebrox?
I believe that the Church and Sacred Tradition are divinely inspired/divinely guided for a combination of reasons. First, because there is an unbroken lineage from Jesus to my own Bishop Olmstead. I believe that this lineage carries the fulness of teaching with it, allowing us to understand and, consequently, love God much more completely than if all we had was the Bible and a vague feeling of grace that we might or might not recognize as coming from something external to ourselves.
As far as other religions claiming the same thing, I am personally unaware of other religions that claim to have unbroken lines from the present back to a past event at which point the founders of the religion witnessed several miraculous events performed by God Himself, including the fulfillment of prophecies that had been previously written.
Peace,
Fred
D
DaveBj
Guest
I’m still looking for documentation on the supposed Luther quote about having to deal with 300 popes (as a result of the sola scriptura doctrine). Anyone?
DaveBj
DaveBj
- Status