Luther was right

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by JonNC
Your words sounded kind of hateful.

=DeusVult09;5573340]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!

Back up a sec. I never said you were hateful, I said your words sounded kind of hateful. I don’t know you, and can’t read your heart, any more than you can read mine. If you got the impression that is what I meant, I apologize.

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.

No, I didn’t insinuate anything of the sort, and I didn’t say you are being hateful. You used the fact that you were pentecostal at one time as a citation for your remarks about/against Luther. I simply pointed out that Luther has little to do with pentecostalism, or Pentecostalism doesn’t have much to do with Luther.
I followed with a series of questions, did you know about Luther’s earlier writings about the Jews, or the general anti-judaism with the Catholic Church at the time before you converted, etc.

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!

Luther’s latter writings against the Jews are clearly vile, there is absolutely no disputing that, and Lutherans neither dispute this fact, nor do we support those writings. OTOH, one doesn’t often hear about the anti-judaism of many Catholics of Luther’s time, such as Johann Eck, just as vile, just as hateful as Luther’s.
The point: Catholics and Lutherans together condemn anti-judaism and anti-semitism. I am not Lutheran because of or even in spite Luther’s anti-judaism. You didn’t become Catholic because of or even in spite of Catholic anti-judaism of the Reformation era.

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:

Luther didn’t get rid of any books.

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

I didn’t take offense to anything. It was just that, to me, the fact that a former Pentecostal or a former Presbyterian doesn’t like Luther was not a particular surprise. That was my point.
To the extent that it is my words that have made our conversation less than cordial, I again apologize.

Jon

 

[Tanner9188]

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.

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

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.

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

**
See you around in other threads; hopefully and Lord willing.
Peace to you…**

 

[Tanner9188]

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

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

Again you use an example just llike the “light of the world” example, but this time it is “loving stones”; as the verse states a believer is the living stone because they posses the living stone on the inside; just like the light passage; if Christ was not there; there would be no light and no living stones; to me this is further proof of the necessity of having the Trinity dwell with the beliver and not an “institution”.

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!”

** I was beginning to believe you were more intellectual than most, not that makes anyone more or less a Christian, but not only do you take the Scripture out of its context, but the ECF’s as well.

For it is common knowledge they, the ECF’s, were defending against heresies and the heretics were preaching another gospel and trying to convince people that they were authentic because, the heretics were citing a lineage that was false. Therefore as part of the defense the ECF’s showed that the true lineage and the true gospel and notice they used Sola Scriptura as the main defense against the heretics; just as it is today.

Also notice how each church was mentioned as a local body. Nothing personal, but I really hope you wake up to the fact that the only head is Christ and if there was an earthly head and it were to die, the whole body would die, which is further proof of there being only one Head, the living Christ, of the true living church, which the Trinity dwells.**

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?

**What does the Bible say in regard to this; it has much to say.
**

So in you opinion, it simply doesn’t matter how immoral Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon et al were, just so long as they reject Rome?
Well, hopefully, the one that takes me as far as possible from carnal likes of men like Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon et al!!

** Has nothing to do with rejecting Rome; but rather the Catholic teaching outside of Scripture alone. If God allows; when I see them in heaven I’ll try to send word; but hopefully that won’t be the case and we we be able to laugh together about all this in heaven; if we had in memory of it.**

---

“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

**
I’m not sure of the point you are making concerning King Henry? Appears he is an apostate from what i just read on that link.**

 

[Bill_Pick]

What other have to say :​

---

Martin Luther (1483-1546) is to be given the credit for inventing the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Only or Bible Sufficiency). He had separated himself from the authority of the Papacy and the Magisterium, and thereby so doing lost all authority regarding Church matters. He then turned to the Bible, a book, as the sole source of authority. Can a book ever be a sole source of authority? Can the Constitution of the United States stand alone without an authoritive body to interpret it? What authoritive body is there to resolve disputes between opposing interpretations of the laws written within it? How long would this country have lasted if the founding fathers had not had the foresight to establish a Supreme Court, which has the final word in the interpretation of the Law of the Land? This country would have been split into factions right from the very beginning.
Isn’t this exactly what happened to Protestantism? Luther separated from the Catholic Church in 1521 and immediately there were squabbles between him, Zwingli, his fellow reformer from Switzerland, and Thomas Munzer. In that same year, Munzer broke away and formed the Anabaptists. John Calvin separated in 1536 and formed Calvinism. John Knox parted company and formed the Presbyterians in 1560. John Smith started the Baptists in 1609, and John and Charles Wesley started Methodism in 1739. From the moment they separated themselves from the Catholic Church, Protestantism lost the ‘Supreme Court’ of Bible interpretation, the Papacy and the Magisterium, and they lost all of the authority given to those two offices by GOD Himself. See the files regarding ‘Authority’, and ‘Magisterium’, elsewhere on this website. The splits continue on to this very day, as there are now over 33,800* differing non-Catholic denominations, none of which can claim authority in the interpretation of the Law of GOD, Holy Scripture. It has become so bad that the sects are feuding amongst themselves and are further splitting internally. There are scores of splinters in the Baptists alone, and several splinters in all of the other major Protestant sects. It is every man for himself in Bible interpretation for Protestantism. If it feels good for you, it must be OK…but be prepared to suffer the consequences. There is no unity in what Martin Luther started. If anything, he made a large part of the Body of Christ impotent. It is easy to see the work of satan here, as it is HIS plan to divide and conquer. See Matt 12:25 for Satan’s plan, and John 10:16 for the plan of Jesus Christ.
*World Christianity Enclopedia, April 2001, a Protestant publication.

Cathloic Treasure Chest

 

[Tanner9188]

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

**Okay; I’m done with this conversation, you not only select which question, which I numbered for your convenience, but then you toss out pertinent Scripture; a view of the whole, in order to “but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter” (quoted from you above) make Scripture fit you preconceived notion of Peter; yet you use the phase above and the antithesis would be “it does mean he can give it to Peter”, but the fact is that none of these passages indicate any Peter Primacy; especially that of the Catholic teaching, because it simply is not taught in Scripture.

Despite a carefully laid out argument, based on Scripture, you reject the truth of what Scripture teaches in favor of what Rome teaches.

God bless and hope to see you around in other threads; Lord willing.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Good bye and may the Lord Bless each of you friends - see on other threads…Lord willing!!!

 

[po18guy]

What other have to say :​

---

Martin Luther (1483-1546) is to be given the credit for inventing the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Only or Bible Sufficiency). He had separated himself from the authority of the Papacy and the Magisterium, and thereby so doing lost all authority regarding Church matters. He then turned to the Bible, a book, as the sole source of authority. Can a book ever be a sole source of authority? Can the Constitution of the United States stand alone without an authoritive body to interpret it? What authoritive body is there to resolve disputes between opposing interpretations of the laws written within it? How long would this country have lasted if the founding fathers had not had the foresight to establish a Supreme Court, which has the final word in the interpretation of the Law of the Land? This country would have been split into factions right from the very beginning.
Isn’t this exactly what happened to Protestantism? Luther separated from the Catholic Church in 1521 and immediately there were squabbles between him, Zwingli, his fellow reformer from Switzerland, and Thomas Munzer. In that same year, Munzer broke away and formed the Anabaptists. John Calvin separated in 1536 and formed Calvinism. John Knox parted company and formed the Presbyterians in 1560. John Smith started the Baptists in 1609, and John and Charles Wesley started Methodism in 1739. From the moment they separated themselves from the Catholic Church, Protestantism lost the ‘Supreme Court’ of Bible interpretation, the Papacy and the Magisterium, and they lost all of the authority given to those two offices by GOD Himself. See the files regarding ‘Authority’, and ‘Magisterium’, elsewhere on this website. The splits continue on to this very day, as there are now over 33,800* differing non-Catholic denominations, none of which can claim authority in the interpretation of the Law of GOD, Holy Scripture. It has become so bad that the sects are feuding amongst themselves and are further splitting internally. There are scores of splinters in the Baptists alone, and several splinters in all of the other major Protestant sects. It is every man for himself in Bible interpretation for Protestantism. If it feels good for you, it must be OK…but be prepared to suffer the consequences. There is no unity in what Martin Luther started. If anything, he made a large part of the Body of Christ impotent. It is easy to see the work of satan here, as it is HIS plan to divide and conquer. See Matt 12:25 for Satan’s plan, and John 10:16 for the plan of Jesus Christ.
*World Christianity Enclopedia, April 2001, a Protestant publication.

Cathloic Treasure Chest

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[josie_L]

Okay; I’m done with this conversation, you not only select which question, which I numbered for your convenience, but then you toss out pertinent Scripture; a view of the whole, in order to “but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter” (quoted from you above) make Scripture fit you preconceived notion of Peter; yet you use the phase above and the antithesis would be “it does mean he can give it to Peter”, but the fact is that none of these passages indicate any Peter Primacy; especially that of the Catholic teaching, because it simply is not taught in Scripture.

Despite a carefully laid out argument, based on Scripture, you reject the truth of what Scripture teaches in favor of what Rome teaches.

God bless and hope to see you around in other threads; Lord willing.

Tanner I’m not in the habit of selecting questions but being that you gave me many questions to answer, I chose to answer that which was easiest, so please be patient and do not assume. First, you said that when the word “keys” (apart from Matthew 16: 16-19) was mentioned in the Bible it was always in the singular, well, that is not so. In Revelation 1:18 “I was dead and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” is plural. When we read Matthew 16:16-19 we see that the word “keys” is also plural but not because each individual apostle has a key just like Peter, but because the keys represents the authority to loose and bind on **Earth **as in Heaven . Now all the apostles had the authority to loose and bind but it was to Peter that it was first administered too and who alone received the keys (whoever is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, i.e., Peter, the rock upon which the foundation of the Church is built cannot loose and bind). The prime minister is a prefiguring of the role of Peter in the Church as he was given the keys by the King of Israel, Jesus. God bless.

 

[DeusVult09]

Back up a sec. I never said you were hateful, I said your words sounded kind of hateful. I don’t know you, and can’t read your heart, any more than you can read mine. If you got the impression that is what I meant, I apologize.

No, I didn’t insinuate anything of the sort, and I didn’t say you are being hateful. You used the fact that you were pentecostal at one time as a citation for your remarks about/against Luther. I simply pointed out that Luther has little to do with pentecostalism, or Pentecostalism doesn’t have much to do with Luther.
I followed with a series of questions, did you know about Luther’s earlier writings about the Jews, or the general anti-judaism with the Catholic Church at the time before you converted, etc.

pentecostalism does have something to do with Luther indirectly as he as well as other religious figures such as John Calvin, Johannes Huss (though he predated the reformation) etc are the founders of Protestantism. But Pentecostalism does not directly have much to do with him.

I know the catholic church was just as anti-Semitic but my point was why is it so if God really chose him to reform his church? I suppose everyone is human but I think if he was really the man of god that many say, if he was chosen by God to reform the church then he would have never said those things because “you know them by their fruits” I also dislike the Catholics who were anti-Semitic back then so im not being hypocritical on this issue. Im just questioning if he was truly following god just as I question whether the Anti-Semitic priests were truly following god.

Luther didn’t get rid of any books.

Apart from his dislike of The Book of revelation And the Epistle of James because its stressed faith and works (though he later changed his mind about the book of revelation)

He did remove Sirach, 1 and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon etc out of the actual bible and placed them in the apocrypha. That’s what I was talking about.

sorry if my tone sound hateful i didn’t mean to

laters

 

[JonNC]

=DeusVult09;5576941]
Apart from his dislike of The Book of revelation And the Epistle of James because its stressed faith and works (though he later changed his mind about the book of revelation)

And James. In his first preface, he says:

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.”

So his complaint was, at least in part, the questioned authorship, though he does complain about it’s concentration on the law.

He did remove Sirach, 1 and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon etc out of the actual bible and placed them in the apocrypha. That’s what I was talking about.

What he did was translate them, and place them in a separate section between the OT and NT. It is curious that he took the time and effort to translate them, if he thought they were completely unworthy. I think his opinion is somewhere between what modern day Catholics and modern day Protestants say about him.
Lastly, I’m not convinced he was right, btw. I certainly don’t think we are right to exclude them, nad I don’t believe Luther would approve of contemporary Protestant English Bibles.

sorry if my tone sound hateful i didn’t mean to

Sometimes it is difficult to “hear” the intentions of posters on a forum.And sometimes we respond to what we “think” we hear. I suspect I wasn’t listening close enough to your words in light of the Holy Spirit’s presence in you, and in me.

Blessings,
Jon

 

[gmcbroom]

I thought that Luthers Bible was the same as ours? I was under the impression though that it was later book publishers such as after he was dead and buried that removed the books or put them in different areas of the Bible? While, he probably stressed some books had more relevance than others he didn’t actually remove them that was the greed of another.

 

[JonNC]

I thought that Luthers Bible was the same as ours? I was under the impression though that it was later book publishers such as after he was dead and buried that removed the books or put them in different areas of the Bible? While, he probably stressed some books had more relevance than others he didn’t actually remove them that was the greed of another.

Thank you.
You are correct, except 1) he added the Prayer of Manasses, and 2) he changed the order of the OT, placing the D-C books in a section between the OT and NT.

Jon

 

[mark_a]

And here’s another thing Luther was right about: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
Though most non-WELS will not agree.

 

[Lutheranteach]

And destroyed Christendom? Since when did the gates of hell prevail?
Luther’s pride? Luther’s pride was matched by the pride and arrogance of a pope who allowed abuses, because of his desire for duckets.
Europe dead to Christ? If Europe, home to the current pope, is dead to Christ, I don’t see how anyone can blame Luther or Leo, dead these 500 years.
Luther…end of Chiritian unity? 1054 was the first break in Christian unity. Tough to lay that one on Luther.

Lack of Christian unity cannot be blamed on the past. That’s a cheap easy way out. Schism and division is our fault - right now, today - ours and our leaders (Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Anglican, Reformed, all of us). No one gets off the hook. We are all guilty of the sin of disunity, and should be asking forgiveness, from God, and from each other, not blaming dead people.

**Luther was nothing more than a false prophet. ** Luther was not a prophet at all, false or otherwise.

Jon

Hate to break the news but Christians have never been a united front. There have always been sects and splinter groups. The Catholic Churches problems in the 1500 and now are mostly of its own making.

 

[mark_a]

Hate to break the news but Christians have never been a united front. There have always been sects and splinter groups.

Isn’t it true that Arianism infected 90% of the Church at one tme. That must have seemed like the end.

The Catholic Churches problems in the 1500 and now are mostly of its own making.

The Catholic Church in turmoil?? Never!!