Is This What Protestantism Is Really About??

[adstrinity]

I know I said when I’d get on a computer, I’d explain more, but, I really don’t want to. I don’t have to and I don’t want to get upset against people who should know better.

 

[jblake]

jmcrae;:

Not in an organized way. Luther was the first to create both a nation and a religion out of his belief system.

The Christians that the Catholic Church massacred four centuries before Luther would differ with that statement. Come to think of it, they were not the only victims of Catholic Genocide of other Christians.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Steadfast;:

Presupposition: That “Apostolic Succession” must be ordinal, ceremonial and “sacramental”.

I’ll just point out that most of the clergy of Eclesiastica Gnostica Catholici have a valid line of Apostolic Succession.

Somehow, I don’t see the Pope endorsing their theology. (And not only because Calvin and Luther had more influence on it, than Pope Honorious, and Pope Leo did.)

jonathon

 

[CWBetts]

The Christians that the Catholic Church massacred four centuries before Luther would differ with that statement. Come to think of it, they were not the only victims of Catholic Genocide of other Christians.

jonathon

“Catholic genocide of other Christians”??? Are you out of your ever-loving mind?! Please try to stay away from your hyperbole and actually make a statement that has, I dunno, EVIDENCE to back it up. Sheesh. I have a feeling you are talking about the inquisitions, where the number of deathes were like 30 a year or something like that. Not that I am making excuse, but hardly a “genocide” Caompre that with the hundreds of executions of Catholics by Elizabeth I of England, herself the “Supreme Head of the Anglican Church” for treason. Their crime: It was an act of treason to be a practicing Catholic. The moral of the story: stop trying to dishonestly portray the Roman Catholic Church as the sole perpetrator of persecutions in the name of Christianity. There is plenty of bla,e to go around.

 

[onenow1]

HI, All just wondering what happened to the topic in question ?
And a few remarks.

Matthew 16
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus gives Peter the keys direct bible Quote above, as I see it .

2Peter 1
15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

Peter is taking charge here to make sure succession is passsed on and note;by his singular declaration above: Also making sure all are aware of the authority of the others appointed by Christ who in turn appointed others as, Bishops. I don,t think there can be any doubt as to who the leader of the flock is with regard to the above verses.

Peace, onenow1

 

[JRKH]

This has been argued already but the departure of Luther had every bit as much and probably more to do with the entrenched attitudes of the Catholic hierarchy and politics than it did with any desire on his part to leave.

I would not dispute either of the statements you have made above. Certainly we, as persons of faith in the 21st century, tend to overlook the tremendous importance of the “political” aspect of those times.

You may reject the idea that some flexibility and temperance on the part of Catholic leaders would have gone a long way toward keeping him in the fold but it certainly seems to have been the case.

Actually you are wrong here. I would not reject such an idea. Greater flexibility on the part of the Church would indeed have been of help. Just as greater humility and obedience would have been on the part of Luther.

Pole and Contarini certainly thought so. Would that there had been more like them.

Yes - and on both sides!!

In this sense it is exactly analogous to Christ who was killed by the very institution he came to correct.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “exactly analogous”, unless you wish to equate Luther with Christ, which I am sure you do not.
The simple fact is that, throughout the History of The Church, many persons from lay men and women to great bishops of the Church have been called by God to reform His Church just as He sent the prophets of old. The key difference is that these persons recognized that the need was to reform the Church from within and not to defy her, and thus defy God Who intituted Her.

Peace
James

 

[jmcrae]

This makes no sense in terms of the Biblical evidence. When Catholics engage in this kind of extreme revisionism and special pleading, it seriously weakens your case.

I think most Catholic scholars and theologians would agree that the prophetic office in the OT was usually a check on the established authorities of king and priest, and that the Church needs a similar prophetic tradition, alongside ordered patterns of government and liturgy.

By denying the clear witness of the Scriptures to such a “charismatic” prophetic tradition, you are radically distorting the nature of Biblical faith by making it a purely authoritarian, established, power-centered business.

Edwin

When you look at the story of the Call of Jeremiah, the first thing he does is he goes to the King and gets an anointing to be Prophet. It’s couched in very symbolic language, but it’s obvious that the King is putting the oil on his forehead at the bidding of God; God isn’t coming down from Heaven and doing it directly.

Same thing with Isaiah - he first goes to the King and then “God anoints him” - the King’s hand was the hand that God used to do the anointing, though; otherwise, why go to the King? Why not just stay in his bedroom and get anointed there?

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

When you look at the story of the Call of Jeremiah, the first thing he does is he goes to the King and gets an anointing to be Prophet. It’s couched in very symbolic language, but it’s obvious that the King is putting the oil on his forehead at the bidding of God; God isn’t coming down from Heaven and doing it directly.

Same thing with Isaiah - he first goes to the King and then “God anoints him” - the King’s hand was the hand that God used to do the anointing, though; otherwise, why go to the King? Why not just stay in his bedroom and get anointed there?

I just doubled checked the calling of both Jeremiah and Isaiah (as recorded in the books which bear their names), and saw no reason to believe the interpretation you are putting forth. Are you suggesting, for example, that in Jeremiah 1:4-5:

Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

that God did not in fact say those things, but it was the king of Judah who did so instead?

Similarly, would you say that Isaiah’s vision in Isaiah 6 was not a vision at all, but a flowery retelling of Isaiah’s anointing by a king? If these are your claims, on what basis do you make them? If you could cite the scriptures on which you’re drawing as well that would be very helpful, just to make sure we’re at least looking at the same passages.

 

[Contarini]

When you look at the story of the Call of Jeremiah, the first thing he does is he goes to the King and gets an anointing to be Prophet. It’s couched in very symbolic language, but it’s obvious that the King is putting the oil on his forehead at the bidding of God; God isn’t coming down from Heaven and doing it directly.

Well, it’s not obvious to me. Could you make a more detailed argument? What I see is God commissioning Jeremiah explicitly to oppose the king and other representatives of official authority structures (v. 18).

Same thing with Isaiah - he first goes to the King and then “God anoints him” - the King’s hand was the hand that God used to do the anointing, though; otherwise, why go to the King? Why not just stay in his bedroom and get anointed there?

Where does Isaiah “go to the King” in a manner implying that the king was the one anointing him? (Actually I can’t think of a reference to Isaiah going to the king before chapter 7.) You need to give me a specific reference. I know that’s a very Protestant thing to ask for, and I don’t approve of proof-texting. But I don’t see any hint in the text of what you are claiming, and I need to see what specifically you are basing this interpretation on.

I agree that there were prophets who were official government appointees. I’m even willing to grant that some of the prophets spoken of with approval in the Bible may have been part of such an official body of prophets, though generally these official bodies of prophets are spoken of very harshly in the Bible. But the specific examples you are claiming don’t seem to be there.

Edwin

 

[fbl9]

When you look at the story of the Call of Jeremiah, the first thing he does is he goes to the King and gets an anointing to be Prophet. It’s couched in very symbolic language, but it’s obvious that the King is putting the oil on his forehead at the bidding of God; God isn’t coming down from Heaven and doing it directly.

Same thing with Isaiah - he first goes to the King and then “God anoints him” - the King’s hand was the hand that God used to do the anointing, though; otherwise, why go to the King? Why not just stay in his bedroom and get anointed there?

of note are the words APPOINTED and ANOINTS,the meanings of these two words are different…clairify,this first…
from lean memeory did not a prophet annoint,a king or leader…choose the man for the job then annointed him,God told the prophet who to pick…??