Luther was right

[josie_L]

**Actually, you have proven you don’t believe God and His promise to lead each individual to His special revelation via the Holy Spirit, which resides in true believers and not with an institution; particulary one that usurps the authority of the Trinity, IMO.

By the way; it is not “pillar and foundation” it is “pillar and support” completely two different Greek words with 2 different meanings used in the NT. How would you know that; you are too lazy, IMO, to read and study the word of God for yourself; therefore you depend on someone else to do your work for you, which almost always leads to error and often another gospel as you have demonstrated IMO. Without the Holy Spirit leading you personally; you cannot understand the Word of God…do you believe that is true or not?**

In I Timothy 2:4, Paul said, “God, our Savior,” now pay attention, “who will have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” You can’t come to the knowledge of the truth until salvation. And real Christians have the indwelling truth teacher, the supernatural Holy Spirit.

John 7 “The Jews marveled saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” IOW; How does He know anything when He hasn’t been to our schools. “Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine but His that sent Me, and if any man will do His will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of Myself.” IOW Jesus said ‑ I got it straight from God.

As for the “pillar and foundation” I took that out of my NIV protestant bible, not a Catholic one. The Catholic Doauy Rheims states “the pillar and ground” either way it’s the Church they are refering to. Which bible has the “pillar and support” by the way?

 

[Tanner9188]

Well if your opinions were authoritative and therefore valid I would give a **** but it isn’t so I don’t.

Hostility is not from God either…is it?

 

[Tanner9188]

As for the “pillar and foundation” I took that out of my NIV protestant bible, not a Catholic one. The Catholic Doauy Rheims states “the pillar and ground” either way it’s the Church they are refering to. Which bible has the “pillar and support” by the way?

**Do a word search on the words support and the word foundation in the NT; then you discover the truth. I’ll guide you here, then in the future you can do the same.

Here is “foundation” ; just click the underlined word you want and a second window will “pop-up” with the original Greek and its meaning.
searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=foundation&section=2&it=nas&oq=mt%252013%3A35&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=mt&ng=13&ncc=13

Here is “support”
searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=support&section=2&it=nas&oq=foundation&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1

I hope this encourages you and makes it easier to dig a little deeper into the Word.
God bless!**

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner,

You proved my point, which is that it is fine for you to cite the ECF’s if they appear in any way to support your doctrines, but when they defy your statements you read into them what is not there. To wit:

No where in the quote does he state anything about Scriptures. You want evidence? Look again at the citation you provided. Note the absence of “scriptures”, “writings” or even, “memoirs.” He is contrasting the Apostles doctrine with that of heretics, certainly not the Scriptures and heretical Scriptures. If he means this, it is no where clear in this citation. Read into it as you wish, just don’t expect anyone to be taken in by such “reasoning.”

First, you stated that the ECF’s taught nothing about doctrine without appealing to Scripture. I refuted this theory by providing citations from the very fathers you listed showing that they were not referring to the scriptures in appealing to Apostolic tradition.

I Clement 1, ANF, 1:5. You can find it online at www.earlychristianwritings.com too.

So you cite the ECF’s when it supports you (or when you think it does) but when they have a contrary opinion to you it is: “where is that in the Scriptures?”

I rest my case . . .

All my best . . .

What in the world is the Bible, particularly the NT? Is it not the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the apostolic teaching?

 

[josie_L]

In I Timothy 2:4, Paul said, “God, our Savior,” now pay attention, “who will have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” You can’t come to the knowledge of the truth until salvation. And real Christians have the indwelling truth teacher, the supernatural Holy Spirit.

How does this contradict what I’ve said?

John 7 “The Jews marveled saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” IOW; How does He know anything when He hasn’t been to our schools. “Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine but His that sent Me, and if any man will do His will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of Myself.” IOW Jesus said ‑ I got it straight from God.

**I have this written in the NIV I have:

"My teachings is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. If anyone chooses to do God’s will (which I do as I have not separated myself from his Church) he will find out whether my teachings comes from God or whether I speak on my own. He who speaks on his own (outside of apostolic authority) does so to gain honor for himself but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.

This does not refute what I’ve said as I have remarked that the Church has authority from God to preach what she does because of apostolic succession. Furthermore, I do not believe the Church on blind faith I ask the Holy Spirit to verify these truths for me, which like the Bereans I have found to be true.**

**“As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).”

The disciples were the apostles and he was directing them to tell the truth to all people everywhere. If you reject the apostolic interpretation (sacred tradition) of sacred scripture you are in effect rejecting God.**

 

[josie_L]

**Do a word search on the words support and the word foundation in the NT; then you discover the truth. I’ll guide you here, then in the future you can do the same.

Here is “foundation” ; just click the underlined word you want and a second window will “pop-up” with the original Greek and its meaning.
searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=foundation&section=2&it=nas&oq=mt%252013%3A35&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=mt&ng=13&ncc=13**

Here is “support”
searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=support&section=2&it=nas&oq=foundation&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1

I hope this encourages you and makes it easier to dig a little deeper into the Word.
God bless!

I asked in which bible will I find the “pillar and support” translation? God bless.

 

[Hisalone]

You post on a Catholic Forum a thread with the title, “Luther Was Right”, and you don’t think that provocative?
What is your view on Real Presence, Baptism, Confession, etc. Was Luther right?

Jon

Luther was right about the authority of scripture.
There is only one person I know that was right on everything, so I disagree with Luther on a number of other issues.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Luther was right about the authority of scripture.
There is only one person I know that was right on everything, so I disagree with Luther on a number of other issues.

I am guessing you mean Jesus was always right on everything when you say this.
I also think, you will find no catholic that will say otherwise either.

 

[Convert66]

What in the world is the Bible, particularly the NT? Is it not the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the apostolic teaching?

Yes it is. But how do we know that? Where is your roll of Bishops stretching back to the Apostles, as *Tertullian would demand? How long has your sect been active?

All my best . . .

 

[josie_L]

Hostility is not from God either…is it?

Tanner you might want to reflect and ponder these words of yours for a moment so I can enjoy the irony of this statement.

 

[Convert66]

Tanner,

I would like for you to explain how you know you are being guided solely by the Holy Spirit when you interpret the Scriptures and not by your Reformed traditions or own understanding? Do you get a burning in the bosom? Is your mind at ease? Sleep improves? Dreams and visions? What is it, exactly? You always agree with Calvin? Your views are supported by a majority group of reformed scholars?

We know it is not by Apostolic authority, so it must be something. What is it?

Please . . .do, tell.

All my best . . .

 

[workingman]

 

[Hisalone]

I am guessing you mean Jesus was always right on everything when you say this.
I also think, you will find no catholic that will say otherwise either.

We found a point of agreement.

 

[workingman]

Hisalone, What do you think Luther was right on? I am sorry I had to role my eyes when R C Sproles was who was on the video. This sounds like the same old SS argument to me. Luther some will say full supported SS and in some ways he did in others he did not. I used to be a LCMS member. Luthers original intent was not to brake away from the CC but to correct abuses at the time. I am sure this was brought up at some point in this thread. I can’t fully recall all I have read as I try and catch up to speed with what has been happening. So I will as specificly what was Luther right on?

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone, What do you think Luther was right on? I am sorry I had to role my eyes when R C Sproles was who was on the video. This sounds like the same old SS argument to me. Luther some will say full supported SS and in some ways he did in others he did not. I used to be a LCMS member. Luthers original intent was not to brake away from the CC but to correct abuses at the time. I am sure this was brought up at some point in this thread. I can’t fully recall all I have read as I try and catch up to speed with what has been happening. So I will as specificly what was Luther right on?

workingman in post #125 I said Luther was right about the authority of scripture.

RC Sproul did bring up the fact that Luther wanted debate not schism.
This was not brought up in the thread but in the video.

 

[workingman]

workingman in post #125 I said Luther was right about the authority of scripture.

RC Sproul did bring up the fact that Luther wanted debate not schism.
This was not brought up in the thread but in the video.

Scripture is authoritateive but does not stand alone. It is Sacred Scripture along with Sacred Tradition. So Luther stance on Baptism and the Eucharist can be thrown out with the bath water so to speak then. If I am reading you correctly.

p.s. Thank you for calling out the post number for me. There was a fair amount of reading and it melded together a little.

But schism is what he got is it not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

**workingman in post #125 **I said Luther was right about the authority of scripture.

RC Sproul did bring up the fact that Luther wanted debate not schism.
This was not brought up in the thread but in the video.

Not according to the way I see the threads here at all.

Nope.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Scripture is authoritateive but does not stand alone. It is Sacred Scripture along with Sacred Tradition. So Luther stance on Baptism and the Eucharist can be thrown out with the bath water so to speak then. If I am reading you correctly.

p.s. Thank you for calling out the post number for me. There was a fair amount of reading and it melded together a little.

Post 125 was Hisalone’s post, not yours.

I know it is confusing, because I had to read it in different modes just to see if it came out to be the same way. Unless I have some kind of deficient mode, that post number 125 is Hisalone’s post.

Not yours. Maybe I need to change modes? Shouldn’t the numbering be the same?

 

[Hisalone]

Scripture is authoritateive but does not stand alone. It is Sacred Scripture along with Sacred Tradition. So Luther stance on Baptism and the Eucharist can be thrown out with the bath water so to speak then. If I am reading you correctly.

p.s. Thank you for calling out the post number for me. There was a fair amount of reading and it melded together a little.

But schism is what he got is it not.

Scripture interprets tradition, tradition should not interpret scripture.

I dont know Luthers stance on baptism. I presume I would agree with most of it but disagree with a small portion.
It is not suprising that Luther, a trainned Catholic theologian would retain many of the Catholic beliefs.

Luther wanted debate. Rome wanted submission. The secular authorities wanted to be free from Romes influence. The people wanted less theocracy and more liberality. Thus a perfect storm for the schism. Luther was but only one of many players in the Reformation and to lay the total responsbility on him is to ignore Romes part as well as secular influences.

 

[Hisalone]

Post 125 was Hisalone’s post, not yours.

I know it is confusing, because I had to read it in different modes just to see if it came out to be the same way. Unless I have some kind of deficient mode, that post number 125 is Hisalone’s post.

Not yours. Maybe I need to change modes? Shouldn’t the numbering be the same?

Yes workingman asked which post is it that I made my claim as to what Luther was right about.