Luther was right

[Tanner9188]

Try these threads;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=366644

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=366648

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=357545

…and this one is just amazing!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=350456 LOL

 

[Contarini]

**
You are guilty of participating in the same IMO; by your denials and protecting the magesterium. **

Instead of making accusations, you should provide evidence.

** You move it to the local bishop and laity level,**

You’re the one obsessed with the word “laity.” I know that priests were involved. I move it to that level because that’s where it happened.

** while at the same time Catholics speak of the unity of the visible Catholic Church under the strict authoity of the Pope**.

First of all, they themselves don’t claim that this applies to all matters. And in the second place, the propaganda you hear on this forum doesn’t match reality.

** If were an isolated incidence; I might agree, but this was national and international with many bishops and laity; there is no way the Vatican could lose that much control without speaking out loud and clear at the time, which did not happen.**

You believe Catholic propaganda too readily. The Vatican does not have anywhere near the power that the Catholics on this forum think it does, or at least think it ought to. For centuries after the Reformation the Catholic Church was enslaved to a “throne and altar” alliance with European Catholic governments. Unfortunately, Popes continued to be influenced by this attitude well into the 20th century, which produced a willingness to treat some very nasty regimes with kid gloves. That does not mean that they approved of everything those regimes did, or that the actions of the local Catholics were inspired primarily by Vatican policy rather than by nationalistic goals. One of the implications of the “throne and altar” alliance was that governments exercised a great deal of control over the Church in their respective countries. Your picture of a completely centralized Church jumping every time the Pope claps his hands doesn’t fit reality, even if it fits some kinds of traditional Catholic propaganda.

One of the reasons I think that maybe I’m of some use on this forum is that so often conservative Catholics and opponents of Catholicism paint the same false picture of Catholicism, just in opposite tones. Catholicism is a lot more complex than either you or your Catholic opponents want to admit.

The reason I referred to Luther and thanking God for the reformation is because to issue with the Serbs is but one of a constant and ongoing speckled history.

But the history of the Reformation churches is also speckled. It’s called original sin–a thoroughly Reformational (and Catholic) belief!

Anyway; at this point it is mute and does not prove much, but I believe in Gods infinite wisdom he designed the churches to funtion locally specifically to keep a central religious authority from corrupting his church on a widescale

Certainly over-centralization is dangerous in any authority structure, and I agree that the authority of the local church has atrophied in the Roman Communion–one of the reasons I haven’t joined it (though my own communion has huge problems exercising any kind of international accountability). However, what you don’t recognize is that much of the corruption and tyranny in Christendom has come from the influence of secular governments. Had the Catholic Church been as centralized as you think in the 1940s, and had it had the kind of power over “Catholic” governments that many folks think it had, I don’t think the atrocities in Croatia would have occurred. You give the wrong diagnosis. You blame the Papacy when you should be blaming the captivity of the Church to nationalism.

Edwin

 

[Tanner9188]

Well, I suppose that depends on how you interpret the various apocalyptic passages in the OT!

This is a circular argument. You initially said that it “can’t” refer to Peter because that would be usurping Christ’s authority. Now you say that you can’t think of an example–a very different argument and illegitimate here, since we are discussing a proposed example. Unless you are arguing that there must necessarily be more than one such example. I think the general argument conservative Catholics would make is that many things about the OT structure point to the Church. I find many of their arguments in this regard questionable. I am actually not sure that the Isaiah 22 passage should be read the way they do, and if it does the context indicates that the gift of authority may not be irrevocable (of course they claim that this is a difference between OT and NT). All I’m saying here is that your “praescriptio” to rule out the possibility of their interpretation doesn’t work.

In your previous post you seemed to be saying that there could not be any such thing because this would usurp Christ’s authority. That’s the argument with which I’m disagreeing.

There is Biblical warrant for what Augustine (following Tychonius) would call the “head/body/members” rule–that what is said of Christ may often be applied to the Church and to individual members thereof (obviously this is not always true). An obvious example is Rev. 2:26-28. You cannot simply rule out this kind of argument as blasphemous or presumptuous.
**

Perhaps Catholics should use a different term for the sake of those with little historical perspective. They are of course using the term in a much more traditional sense drawn from cultures where the monarch has more actual authority and the “prime minister” or vizier simply acts on his behalf.

I agree that the term “Vicar of Christ” ought never to have been adopted. The older title was “Vicar of St. Peter.” However, the Catholic argument is that the Holy Spirit acts through the office of the Papacy in a particular way.

**

No, it is development of doctrine, which clearly does exist. That of course does not prove that this particular development was a good one.

Edwin**

**I did not say that the mention of the apostles in the OT or Peter specifically would usurp the authority of Christ; that would be a ridiculous statement; we agree on something here.

I did say the idea of “Primacy of Peter” to which Catholics reference Isaiah 22 would be and is usurping the authority of Christ as the only “head” of the church on earth and heaven.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find some reference to the apostles in some form or fashion in the prophetic writings, but I am not aware of any.****

 

[Tanner9188]

Instead of making accusations, you should provide evidence.

You’re the one obsessed with the word “laity.” I know that priests were involved. I move it to that level because that’s where it happened.

First of all, they themselves don’t claim that this applies to all matters. And in the second place, the propaganda you hear on this forum doesn’t match reality.

You believe Catholic propaganda too readily. The Vatican does not have anywhere near the power that the Catholics on this forum think it does, or at least think it ought to. For centuries after the Reformation the Catholic Church was enslaved to a “throne and altar” alliance with European Catholic governments. Unfortunately, Popes continued to be influenced by this attitude well into the 20th century, which produced a willingness to treat some very nasty regimes with kid gloves. That does not mean that they approved of everything those regimes did, or that the actions of the local Catholics were inspired primarily by Vatican policy rather than by nationalistic goals. One of the implications of the “throne and altar” alliance was that governments exercised a great deal of control over the Church in their respective countries. Your picture of a completely centralized Church jumping every time the Pope claps his hands doesn’t fit reality, even if it fits some kinds of traditional Catholic propaganda.

One of the reasons I think that maybe I’m of some use on this forum is that so often conservative Catholics and opponents of Catholicism paint the same false picture of Catholicism, just in opposite tones. Catholicism is a lot more complex than either you or your Catholic opponents want to admit.

But the history of the Reformation churches is also speckled. It’s called original sin–a thoroughly Reformational (and Catholic) belief!

Certainly over-centralization is dangerous in any authority structure, and I agree that the authority of the local church has atrophied in the Roman Communion–one of the reasons I haven’t joined it (though my own communion has huge problems exercising any kind of international accountability). However, what you don’t recognize is that much of the corruption and tyranny in Christendom has come from the influence of secular governments. Had the Catholic Church been as centralized as you think in the 1940s, and had it had the kind of power over “Catholic” governments that many folks think it had, I don’t think the atrocities in Croatia would have occurred. You give the wrong diagnosis. You blame the Papacy when you should be blaming the captivity of the Church to nationalism.

Edwin
**I think we agree on much here; but any proof that I give you will not convince you of anything; you can go to UTUBE and their are some short documentaries with all kinds of sources, but how reliable I do not know. The one I saw I forwarded to my father-in-law to see if it was accurate. He is not a historian, but has a great interest and knows a great deal of history concerning his native country of Yugoslavia and he said it was very accurate and he added a few more things that were not in this documentary.

I appreciate the discussion and your insights and I can tell you have a pretty level head and an interest in history; I’m sure you know a great deal more than I do concerning history and its relation to religion.

God bless you!

Tanner**

 

[Bill_Pick]

**Bill,

If you would like me to leave CAF permanently; then just say so, don’t sugar coat your words - speak them clearly.

You can always add me to your “do not talk to” list.

I plan to leave this specific thread since Luther discussion is taking on other avenues and there is not much more to say concerning him IMO.

God bless you Bill,

Tanner**

Why are you being rude to me for asking a very simply question, and you r right I can add you to ignort but why do that,and if I think your leave I.d just say so,and I have not" sugar coat" my works in years

 

[josie_L]

Why do you think the word is plural? “KEYS” ; therefore the indefinite pronoun “you” is also plural, which means the “keys” were given to Jesus audience, which were all of the apostles. Then we put in Matthew 18, which is the same effect but with a broader audience to which Jesus addresses; therefore it applies to anyone that the Holy Spirit blesses with the ability to articulate and present the gospel. I saved that “little” point for last; but the “little” point should not leave any doubts because there is only “one key” that locks and unlocks the gateway to heaven and the authority is in the message, NOT the messenger as some expose falsely.

Keys is plural because one key is for binding and the other key is for loosing, it’s not because Jesus is planning to give everyone of the apostles/disciples present a key. And furthermore, just a couple chapters later (if he was giving all of them the power to loose and bind in Matthew 16 then why mention it again in Matthew 18?) you see Jesus giving authority of loosing and binding to the apostles/disciples but never in the same manner that it was given to Peter (and the prime minister) with the keys.

**You are taking the ECF’s out of context as well as they are defending against certain heresies that crept in as the Bible said they would. At that time the EFC’s are showing a line of people that were assigned the leadership role as overseer; whereas others were making similar claims and preaching a different gospel; for all these men were defending the Scripture as it was given by, written word and/or orally. It is the same with understanding Scripture, you must take account of the whole; not just pick pieces out here and there and make it mean something it does not. This is what the talk show and news folks do everyday is take “sound bites” and often taking them out of context; this is exactly what you are doing.

I apologize to you for badgering a little too much with the “lazy” rhetoric.

God bless and have a really nice weekend

Tanner**

Tanner how am I taking the ECFs out of context when they are literally saying that Peter is the Rock the leader of the apostles, i.e., the (earthly) Church and so to are his successors?

God bless and apology accepted. And if I don’t speak to you have a nice weekend.

 

[po18guy]

God magnifies His word above His name, where does that leave the traditions of men.

You tell us, since you follow the man-made traditions of sola scriptura, and sola fide (salvation by the work of faith). You tell us.

 

[Zundrah]

Does your religion have a Holy Spirit in it? Apparently not, from what you say here.

…saying this will not convert people PO18GUY!

 

[po18guy]

…saying this will not convert people PO18GUY!

By his statements, he denies that the Holy Spirit lead the Church to all truth. So, I had to ask. It is the Holy Spirit that accomplishes all conversions.

 

[Zundrah]

By his statements, he denies that the Holy Spirit lead the Church to all truth. So, I had to ask. It is the Holy Spirit that accomplishes all conversions.

Hmm, but isn’t he protestant? Then of course he wouldn’t believe that the holy spirit guides the church? Or… am I confused and don’t know what you are actually talking about (which i think is the case)!?

 

[Tanner9188]

Why are you being rude to me for asking a very simply question, and you r right I can add you to ignort but why do that,and if I think your leave I.d just say so,and I have not" sugar coat" my works in years

The previous post was clear that I was leaving the thread; then you add sarcasm in your response “we can’t live without you”; please don’t be the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[workingman]

Tanner9188;5568081]LOL

I don’t see it; Paul is speaking to a single local church. Which bears testimony to my position; and in no way implies any kind of Primacy.

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
I highlighted the bishops part for you in red. The Holy Ghost part of the trinity placed bishops to guide and rule the church of God.

B]Again, you further my other point concerning the lack of Peter being any head; except the leader of the apostles, but notice in the context of the passage what Paul states in versus 15 and 16.
“15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” Notice Paul does NOT mention Peter and includes himself as an individual part…Peter has no Primacy according to Scripture.

God gave all distinct roles who are have to answer to someone. The primacy of Peter was lade out earlier remember. Matt. 16:18.

Qualification or standards God set for the Pastors of the His flock(s) equates to a hierarchy? Get real; you can’t be serious can you?

1Timothy 3:1 and Titus 1:7. Am I serious :coffeeread: YUP I am. Why would a title like Bishop be called out and given a list of duties and responsabilities be laid out if it was not to be instatuted.

**Thanks for the detail on your conversion to Catholicism; I always appreciate peoples testimonies to their faith. What was the original topic…just kidding, I look forward to meeting you again; Lord willing.

Peace from God!**

You are welcome. I look forward to your reply either hear or I’m sure eventualy in another thread. God bless.

 

[po18guy]

Hmm, but isn’t he protestant? Then of course he wouldn’t believe that the holy spirit guides the church? Or… am I confused and don’t know what you are actually talking about (which i think is the case)!?

In John 14:26 and John 15:26, Jesus promises the Holy Spirit to His Church, which He founded on Peter (Matthew 16:18) and the Apostles. In Luke 10:16, Christ told the Apostles that whoever hears them hears Him. He who rejects them rejects Him and the One Who sent Him. In Matthew 28:19, He then sent them forth to make disciples of all nations, with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, realizing that Jesus’ return was delayed (2 Peter 3:3-8) and that they would not reach the ends of the earth during their lifetimes, appointed successors to continue their work. Peter quoted King David in Psalm 69:26 and Psalm 109:8 in replacing Judas, as recorded in Acts 1:15-29. The OP, for whatever reason, does not believe this and has come up with an essentially “new gospel”, which is based on private interpretation of scripture. Of course, such private interpretation is also prohibited by scripture in 2 Peter 1:20. Private interpretation resulted, even in those days, in the twisting of Paul’s words (2 Peter 3:16) and so, was prohibited. Only the Holy Spirit can help the OP find his way back to the “fulness” of truth.

 

[Zundrah]

In John 14:26 and John 15:26, Jesus promises the Holy Spirit to His Church, which He founded on Peter (Matthew 16:18) and the Apostles. In Luke 10:16, Christ told the Apostles that whoever hears them hears Him. He who rejects them rejects Him and the One Who sent Him. In Matthew 28:19, He then sent them forth to make disciples of all nations, with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, realizing that Jesus’ return was delayed (2 Peter 3:3-8) and that they would not reach the ends of the earth during their lifetimes, appointed successors to continue their work. Peter quoted King David in Psalm 69:26 and Psalm 109:8 in replacing Judas, as recorded in Acts 1:15-29. The OP, for whatever reason, does not believe this and has come up with an essentially “new gospel”, which is based on private interpretation of scripture. Of course, such private interpretation is also prohibited by scripture in 2 Peter 1:20. Private interpretation resulted, even in those days, in the twisting of Paul’s words (2 Peter 3:16) and so, was prohibited. Only the Holy Spirit can help the OP find his way back to the “fulness” of truth.

Amen, may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ guide him home.

O MY JESUS, FORGIVE US OUR SINS,
SAVE US FROM THE FIRES OF HELL.
LEAD ALL SOULS TO HEAVEN,
ESPECIALLY THOSE IN MOST NEED OF THY MERCY.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

… those who possess Jesus are the light of the world; not on their account, on His account. Without Him; you have no light nor understanding of Scripture…

Who said anything about being the light of the world on one’s own account?? That sounds like something the “Reformer” Pelagius might teach!

My point was simply this: Christ said:

a. He was the light of the world.

b. His true disciples were also the light of the world.

So it’s usually not a question of one vs the other - oftentimes it’s both! Another example: Scripture calls Christ a stone, yet it also calls his disciples stones. Again, you see it’s both, not simply either / or. I’m afraid you are showing your complete lack of understanding of the Incarnation here. But that’s for another thread.

Second; the analogy to be effective would have to have Scripture say something along these lines.

Catholic 1:1-2 1 Then Jesus gathered His disciples and said to Peter; “these men are to follow you, after I ascend to heaven to be with My Father as I have already told you. 2 You will be the head and foundation of My church on earth and those who succeed after you to which you appoint, then who they appoint and so on till I return”

Well I guess that, using your approach, Christ should have explicitly warned against the Roman Church! As it is however, He * praises* the Roman Church (Rom. 1:8). But who, my friend (and I mean no disrespect), has ever even heard of your church?

RE: “The Church is the light of the world.”

You object to the Church being called the light of the world. But what of the many who disagree with you?

Web: google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Church+is+the+light+of+the+world&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

Google books: books.google.com/books?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22Church%20is%20the%20light%20of%20the%20world%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

So who is right??

And now a quick question regarding Luther (just trying to understand where you’re coming from). Does the fact that Luther’s teachings, considered in his day the “delight of debauchees,” bother you at all? To give but one example. Luther held that premarital sex between engaged couples was alright:

1. What about the Intercourse of the Betrothed?

Secret intercourse of those who are engaged to each other can certainly not be considered fornication; for it takes place in the name and with the intention of marriage, a desire, intention, or name which fornication does not have. Thus there is a great difference indeed between fornication and secret intercourse after the promise of marriage.

• Von Ehesachen (1530)

What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass, Concordia Publishing House, 1959 (1994, three vols. in one), ISBN 0570042402, p. 896.

books.google.com/books?id=NQA5AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&dq=%22Secret+intercourse+of+those+who+are+engaged+to+each+other+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0

Primary Sources:
(W 30 III, 226f – E 23, 123 – SL 10, 781).
W= Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works. D. Martin Luthers Werke : Kritische Gesamtausgabe (1883 ff.).
E = Erlangen Ed. Dr. Martin Luther’s samtliche Werke (Erlangen: Heyder, 1826-1857)
SL = Saint Louis Ed. Dr. Martin Luthers samtliche Schriften, (25 vols.), based on the earlier edition by Johann Georg Walch, (Halle: J. J. Gebauer, 1740-1753, 24 vols.).

Of course those with “itching ears” will rejoice at “teachers” such as Luther. But let them be reminded of what Scripture says:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10

And let them “hear the Church:”

The Kansas Bishops on Cohabitation Before Marriage.

Looking forward to you reply.

God bless!

 

[Tanner9188]

Keys is plural because one key is for binding and the other key is for loosing, it’s not because Jesus is planning to give everyone of the apostles/disciples present a key. And furthermore, just a couple chapters later (if he was giving all of them the power to loose and bind in Matthew 16 then why mention it again in Matthew 18?) you see Jesus giving authority of loosing and binding to the apostles/disciples but never in the same manner that it was given to Peter (and the prime minister) with the keys.

**Perhaps you might think of Prime minister in terms as it is shown in the English government; the “Prime Minister” is equivalent to our “President”.

1. What manner was that? Please explain. ( see red above ) 2) What is the “key”? 3) Is the door to heaven; two doors; meaning the losing uses a key that open a door and the binding keeps shut a different door? 4) How do you account for the use of the indefinite pronoun “you” which must/has to correspond with “keys” plural; yet when “key” is used in every other place in the entire Bible; it is used singularly because the object is singular.
2. Since you believe Isaiah 22:22 refers to Peter; then how do you reconcile that it is a single key?
   Isaiah 22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut (lose), and what he shuts (bind) no one can open. (This is also proof that OSAS is true and OLAL (apostasy) is true.)

Revelation 3:7 These are the words of Him who is holy and true, Who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

1. The language is identical; how do you resolve this in relation to Peter and Matthew 16 & Matthew 18? please explain…thanks!**

Tanner how am I taking the ECFs out of context when they are literally saying that Peter is the Rock the leader of the apostles, i.e., the (earthly) Church and so to are his successors?

God bless and apology accepted. And if I don’t speak to you have a nice weekend.

**Did they really say “Peter is the Rock” or were they defending against heresies where people were preaching another gospel and using a lineage to show their authority?

Thank you and have a great weekend…blessings.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Who said anything about being the light of the world on one’s own account?? That sounds like something the “Reformer” Pelagius might teach!

My point was simply this: Christ said:

a. He was the light of the world.

b. His true disciples were also the light of the world.

As much as you want to make it fit; it doesn’t; If you are a believer; then Christ dwells in you; which is why the verse says that his disciples are the “light of the world”. If you are not a believer, you do not have Christ and you have no light. The stones is another bad example; showing your lack of understanding of the details and nuances of the Greek. I can give you a regular brick on a residential house; then show you a brick used for the pyramids in Egypt and tell me if they are the same thing. Not even close.

So it’s usually not a question of one vs the other - oftentimes it’s both! Another example: Scripture calls Christ a stone, yet it also calls his disciples stones. Again, you see it’s both, not simply either / or. I’m afraid you are showing your complete lack of understanding of the Incarnation here. But that’s for another thread.

Now you are describing a paradox; so I will give you an example to help in you lack of understanding. Do we chose God or does He chose us? The Bible tells us it is both.

Well I guess that, using your approach, Christ should have explicitly warned against the Roman Church! As it is however, He * praises* the Roman Church (Rom. 1:8). But who, my friend (and I mean no disrespect), has ever even heard of your church?

**The church at Rome would be more accurate, Paul said “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints”

However I do agree with you that you belong to a Roman Church.**

RE: “The Church is the light of the world.”

You object to the Church being called the light of the world. But what of the many who disagree with you?
EDIT
So who is right??

Perhaps the issue is we have different ideas of what the church is. If I view the church as the collection of individuals that make up the body of Christ and each of those individuals “has the light of Christ because Christ is in them”; then I can say the “church” is the light of the world. This is not how you would view it.

And now a quick question regarding Luther (just trying to understand where you’re coming from). Does the fact that Luther’s teachings, considered in his day the “delight of debauchees,” bother you at all? To give but one example. Luther held that premarital sex between engaged couples was alright:
EDITED
Of course those with “itching ears” will rejoice at “teachers” such as Luther. But let them be reminded of what Scripture says:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10

And let them “hear the Church:”

EDITED

Looking forward to you reply.

God bless!

**Honestly; I don’t really care about what Luther said or did not say in the sense that it has no bearing on my righteousness before God; but I am thankful for persons God used to bring back the pure word of God; men such as Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Bunyan, Edwards, Ryle and the like.

Here is a warning from Jesus; keep in mind He is speaking to very religious people and there are two roads marked “Heaven”, but only one actually goes there.

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Which road are you on?**

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The stones is another bad example; showing your lack of understanding of the details and nuances of the Greek. I can give you a regular brick on a residential house; then show you a brick used for the pyramids in Egypt and tell me if they are the same thing. Not even close.

What nuance?? The same Greek word, lithos (stone), is used of both Christ and his Christians in the following passages from 1 Rock:

1Peter 2:4
And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God,

1Pe 2:5
you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:6
For this is contained in Scripture: “Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a PRECIOUS CORNER stone, And he who believes in Him shall not be DISAPPOINTED.”

1Pe 2:7
This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, “The STONE which the builders REJECTED, This became the very corner stone,”

1Pe 2:8
and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3037&version=nas

And in Ephesians 2:20, Christ is referred to as a “cornerstone” i.e., part of the foundation.

**The church at Rome would be more accurate, Paul said “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints”

However I do agree with you that you belong to a Roman Church.**

The Church of Rome or the Roman Church (either way) which St. Paul praised, is the very same Church whose Primacy and continued existence from Apostolic times was recognized by the Fathers. Moreover, the Fathers understood that the faith of this Roman Church could not, had not, and would never be changed.

We can start off with a few quotes from St. Jerome:

“But let me tell you that the faith of Rome which was praised by the voice of an Apostle, does not recognize tricks of this kind. A faith which has been guaranteed by the authority of an Apostle *cannot be changed *though an Angel should announce another gospel than that which he preached.” Jerome, Apology Against Rufinus (Book III).

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul.” Jerome, letter 15, to Pope Damasus.

“…always to remember the faith of Rome; that faith which is praised by the lips of an apostle (Romans 1:8), and of which the Alexandrian church boasts to be a sharer.” Jerome, letter 63

Conscious that the faith of Rome— once praised by an apostle Romans 1:8 … Jerome, letter 127.

In another of his writings, Dialogus contra Pelagianos (Dialogue Against Pelagius), St. Jerome speaks of the heretic Jovinian, “whose heresy is being revived at the present time, shocked the faith of Rome…”
books.google.com/books?id=-bATfH6O0MMC&pg=RA6-PA233&dq=%22shocked+the+faith+of+rome%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22shocked%20the%20faith%20of%20rome%22&f=false

So God has preserved the Church which he founded and praised! And its Bishop still presides over that ancient and unchanging “faith of Rome!”

Perhaps the issue is we have different ideas of what the church is. If I view the church as the collection of individuals that make up the body of Christ and each of those individuals “has the light of Christ because Christ is in them”; then I can say the “church” is the light of the world. This is not how you would view it.

Did Luther have “the light of Christ” in him when he condoned premarital sex for engaged couples? Did Luther have “the light of Christ” in him when, undoubtedly following his own immoral teaching, he himself was fornicating with that nun, Katharina von Bora for heaven knows how long before finally getting married?

Honestly; I don’t really care about what Luther said or did not say in the sense that it has no bearing on my righteousness before God; but I am thankful for persons God used to bring back the pure word of God; men such as Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Bunyan, Edwards, Ryle and the like.

So in you opinion, it simply doesn’t matter how immoral Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon et al were, just so long as they reject Rome?

Here is a warning from Jesus; keep in mind He is speaking to very religious people and there are two roads marked “Heaven”, but only one actually goes there.

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Which road are you on?

Well, hopefully, the one that takes me as far as possible from carnal likes of men like Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon et al!!

---

“Alas, how can the poor souls live in concord when you preachers sow amongst them in your sermons debate and discord? They look to you for light and you bring them darkness. Amend these crimes, I exhort you, and set forth God’s word truly, both by true preaching and giving a good example, or else, I, whom God has appointed his vicar and high minister here, will see these divisions extinct, and these enormities corrected…”

Henry VIII, Last speech to parliament, December 24, 1545.

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, Great Britain. Public Record Office, John Sherren Brewer, Robert Henry, vol. XX, part 2, p. 513.

books.google.com/books?id=oBsFAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA4-PA513&dq=%22I,+whom+God+has+appointed+his+vicar+and+high+minister+%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22I%2C%20whom%20God%20has%20appointed%20his%20vicar%20and%20high%20minister%20%22&f=false

From Wikiquote:
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

 

[josie_L]

**

Revelation 3:7 These are the words of Him who is holy and true, Who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

1. The language is identical; how do you resolve this in relation to Peter and Matthew 16 & Matthew 18? please explain…thanks!**

Here is the answer to reconciling the two scriptures (Matthew 18 as nothing to do with it):

“Question: Revelation 3:7 proves Christ is the one who holds the key of David, not Peter. Isaiah 22 prophesies Christ’s coming and his authority rather than Peter’s. Matthew 16:18 has nothing to do with either.”

“A: As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom.”

"In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

“Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.”.

“Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19”.

“There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!”

“Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent”

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9108qq.asp

 

[DeusVult09]

Your words sounded kind of hateful. And my understanding is pentecostals are not particular fans of Luther, anyway.

He was a Christian who lived at a time prior to the Council of Trent, whenb all Christians were permitted to question and debate the canon. His rights were the same as anyone’s.
“nothing but the Bible” is solo scriptura. Lutherans acknowledge the importance of tradition, the councils and creeds, the ECF’s, etc. Scripture is the final norm by which these things are measured.

Jon

My words are hateful because I said im not just some catholic on a Luther hating spree? That I actually was protestant!? Ohh yes im being a hater for that!

Im being so hateful? you just insinuated I don’t know anything about the man just because I wasn’t Lutheran so you are not one to talk.

Am i also hateful because I said Luther was a vile anti-Semite? Well its true. I have read some of his writings and he was. I stand by that statement!

Pentecostals are not a homogenous group. Some Pentecostals dislike him but some others admire him. I have heard Pentecostal pastors praise him from the pulpit for having the courage to stand up to “ the evil whore of Babylon” as they put it. lol

As far as I am concerned you cant say sola scriptura / scripture alone and then try to get rid of books which don’t suit your theology. That is pure hypocrisy:bible1:

I wasn’t a Pentecostal all my life for a while I was also a Presbyterian so all I was saying that I was an ex-protestant (both Pentecostal and Presbyterian) and even I don’t like Luther. By qualified I didn’t mean that I was an expert but just that i can criticize him free from the stereotype of being “just another catholic Luther hater”. That’s all I meant. But you took offense to that. ohh well