Luther...

[squeekster]

Eden:

Your Bible was preserved for you by the Catholic Church for over 1500 years.

``We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" - Martin Luther - Commentary on St. John

I’m not contending that the Bible wasn’t compiled by those in the Catholic church. But I can’t count how many Catholics I’ve run across that claim that the Catholic church wrote the Bible as if it were the Catholics themselves that originated it. The Bible is God’s Word to man and I believe that everything God wanted us to know concerning Him is in His Word.

 

[KnightErrantJR]

As far as the 30,000 or whatever the true number is . . . well, lets think about how unlikely, or likely, this is. In my town we have at least three “non-denominational” churchs. These three churches do not beleive what each other beleives, nor what the Lutheran, Protestant, or Episcopal churches in town beleive. One believes that you shouldn’t rent videos or get involved at all in pop culture, and one that beleives you shouldn’t drink or gamble. My sister is a member of another “non-denominational” church that thinks that Harry Potter is wrong to let children read, and there are at least two or three more of these “non-denominational” churches, each having variable views, in her town as well. And we both live in rather small towns.

Having been raised Lutheran, I think its kind of funny that someone wonders what Catholics have against Luther. While our pastor for my confirmation was pretty easy going about the topic (even pointing out that he had a Catholic Priest as a best friend), my brother, ten years my senior, was still being taught how Catholics are wrong, idoloters, worshipping crucifixs, saints and icons, and trusting a MAN to act as christ.

Being of German decent as well, I will say the following: Luther splitting from the church seems like a prime example of German stubborness. Luther has some good ideas, and gets on a roll, adding a few things that he is upset about that maybe aren’t wrong or misconstrued, but hey, he is on a roll. Then he starts to think, hey, if they don’t agree with my ENTIRE list, then forget them, its time to strike out against them!

The problem is, once he set into motion that centralized authority was wrong, and tradition was wrong, what keeps anyone adhereing to what he decided was right? Under what authority does Luther even write the Catechesim of the Lutheran Church if there is no tradition? Luther himself beleived in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but since he never put it in the Catechism, the only acceptable form of tradition, apparently, that beleif fades once modern Lutherans can fathom it anymore.

I like to look at the metaphysical the same way as physics work, in this regard. If indeed the church was moving in the wrong direction, something would have to act on it in the opposite direction to get it back to its starting point. But Luther kicked it so hard in the opposite direction that while the main body of the church landed near its starting point, part of it split off and kept rolling in the wrong direction, and keeps splitting and rolling further and further away.

I also think its an interesting legacy that the new “non-denominational” churches are looking to convert followers in Catholic nations, but that these same “reformers” have almost as much contempt for Lutherans and Methodists and other “old protestant” churches as they do for Catholics.

 

[Church_Militant]

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. " Read it all HERE

That was written by Ignatius of Antioch within 10 years of the death of his close friend and mentor in the faith St. John the apostle. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch, and was thrown to wild animals for his faith, so he’s not likely to have been in error.This shows that the name Catholic was already in use. If the early church took on the name Catholic and kept ot for 2,000 years, it’s not wrong to say that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible

 

[Mickey]

squeekster:

. The Bible is God’s Word to man and I believe that everything God wanted us to know concerning Him is in His Word.

The Catholic Church decided which of the many writings in circulation were truly the inspired Word of God. That is the point. The whole debate centers around interpretation and who better to interpret the inspired Word of God than the Church who declared it to be the inspired Word of God!?!

 

[Ghosty]

If the early church took on the name Catholic and kept ot for 2,000 years, it’s not wrong to say that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible

Precisely. The group of Christians that wrote down the bible had Bishops, believed in the Real Presence, confessed to priests, kept to oral tradition, had formalized rituals for Sacraments as described in the Didiche, and called themselves the Catholic Church.

I don’t see why this is so hard to understand. It’s a very basic and obvious point of history.

 

[Hildebrand]

squeekster:

This was asked on another forum by someone else, but I thought that it was a fairly interesting question, so I’ll ask it here. If this isn’t the right forum, please move it.

Why do Catholics have such a big dislike for Martin Luther?

Martin Luther thought everyone with common sense would follow his way of interpreting Scripture.

Instead, Martin Luther helped to create the fissures that eventually broke up Christianity into tens of thousands of divided and conflicted churches, denominations, and sects… all disagreeing with each other on doctrinal issues.

---

“Why do evangelicals and other conservative Christians have such a big dislike for secularism? Apparently secularism is a real threat, at least to some peoples’ faith, as every board that I have gone to, there have been Christians running secularism over the coals. There must have been some truth to secularism , because if it wasn’t some kind of a threat, Christians would just totally ignore it and what it taught would have been forgotten long ago.” :whacky:

As I say all the time - “Ideas have consequences…”

 

[Chrysogonus]

squeekster:

I’m not contending that the Bible wasn’t compiled by those in the Catholic church. But I can’t count how many Catholics I’ve run across that claim that the Catholic church wrote the Bible as if it were the Catholics themselves that originated it.

Peach be with you.

True indeed, but perhaps deserving of a little clarification: the New Testament was written by members of the Church (neglecting for now arguments suggesting that the Apostolic Church does not subsist in the contemporary Catholic Church) – the Evangelists, St. Paul, et al. – but with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. A slight exception of course is Revelation, whose composition was commanded by God. But I know that you know all this.

The point that needs to be resolved, I believe, is whether the Council of Nicæa intended to produce an exhaustive compendium of Divine Truth (and whether it could if it tried). I’ll endeavour to find what the Council had to say on the matter.

Again, peace,

• Chrysogonus -

Edit: Many of the posts between my beginning to compose this and my publishing it seem to cover the same ground; such is the way of things, I suppose…

 

[Lazerlike42]

For instance, I’ve had Catholics tell me that Mary being born sinless is from tradition, supposedly meaning that it was passed down from the Apostles. Yet when asked which of the original Apostles made the claim, I get the message board equivalent of a blank stare. Now don’t get me wrong, in certain instances, there isn’t anything really wrong with a few traditions. But if one is going to claim that these alleged traditions are from God, it just seems to me that there ought to be concrete proof of those assertions. Not just “it’s that way because the church says so”.

It doesn’t matter whom a teaching came from as long as it came from someone. For instance, the books of 1 and 2 John don’t really teach anything. They just talk about how John is going to tell the readers things when he arrives. Similarly, we know Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians which came before 1 Corinthians in which he taught them things. We don’t have that letter or any idea what it was about. We also know that Jesus spent 40 days teaching the desciples things that aren’t recorded in the Gospels. He clearly taught new things, seeing as He spent the time with the Apostles whom had already been taught all that was in the Gospels. Did Christ leave us with only the Bible and no way of knowing any of what He taught during those 40 days? God forbid!

The Catholic Church has all that stuff that was taught on all of those occasions and more. By this time we don’t know which of our teachings were specifically given to the Corinthians in that letter, or what precisely John told his desciples, or what exactly Jesus said in those 40 days. We don’t have to know. We know all of that information as a whole. Your error in asking from which Apostle is a result of viewing knowledge in a sense that it had to come from some writing somewhere. It doesn’t. In asking which Apostle it came from, you’re really asking to see a letter written by that Apostle.

Look at it this way. All of the Apostles knew basically the same things, with the exception of a few things here and there (for instance probably only John knew the things he wrote in Revelation). Any teaching that we have didn’t so much as come from this Apostle or that Apostle, but from the Apostles. Another way to look at it is that the Apostles aren’t really the ones who came up with the teachings we have, but Christ. Christ taught them what they knew, and they taught what they knew.

The Apostles taught what they knew to their desciples, and their desciples taught it to theirs’, and so on and so on. If you want to try to figure out “which” Apostle it came from, then look for its first reference in the early Church fathers and figure out whom taught them.

 

[scylla]

If you are going to contend that the Catholic Church didn’t compile the Bible, then let us know who did? We do are not argueing that it isn’t divinely inspired, we are saying that God used the Catholic Church in order to determine the canon and create the Bible.
Just look up which Church was convening councils and resolving disputes in doctrine. I recommend looking up the Council of Carthage and the details around that.
If you are going to deny something then let us know what you believe the truth to be. If you are denying something then you must have a basis for denying it, other than just the Catholic Church is wrong.

But this thread is about Luther, why not start a thread asking how the canon of scripture came about and we will be happy to give you reference material to look it up and search for truth.

Thanks for remaining here and keeping up the dialogue.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[E.E.N.S]

squeekster:

But if one is going to claim that these alleged traditions are from God, it just seems to me that there ought to be concrete proof of those assertions. Not just “it’s that way because the church says so”.

That’s funny, you rely on “the Church said so” when it comes to the Bible…no, you say? Well then, how do you know that the Bible is insipired in the first place? Where is your concrete proof? That’s right, we know it is (name removed by moderator)ired because “the Church said so.”

 

[E.E.N.S]

(I posted this earlier - but it kind of fits here too )

As St. Augustine said, “I would not believe in the Gospel, did not the authority of the Church move me.” Christ and the Church can no more be regarded seperately than can a head and its body. Too often we hear people, like Squeekster, trying to hack away at the Faith to fit it to his own personal desires…I ask, how would such a person believe and have faith in Jesus Christ for the first 380 years since there was no Bible as we know it? Well, since Jesus, His Church, the Faith are living and not dead, then they must grow (like the parable of the mustard seed) - true the Bible is the inspired, written Word of God, but it was never meant to stop there (in fact it didn’t start there either.) And only through the Church, which is the fulness of Christ, do we come to know, that which we have today as the written Word, as inspired and therefore infallible. The aim of the Church in her official systemis simply to secure the great and primary Christian idea that properly only one authority, only one teacher, only one sanctifier, only one pastor: Christ, the Lord.

Okay, back to my first point; the written communications of the apostles were only supplimentary to their oral preaching, sometimes in confirmation of it or preparatory to it. Even the Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, and Hebrews, in spite of their more general range, are concerned particularly with the needs of the people to whom they were addressed, and make no sort of claim to be an exhaustive exposition of the Christian Faith. So little thought was given to any final literary expression of the gospel that some apostles left no writing whatever after them, and that apostolic writings could even disappear (cf. 1 Cor 5:9; Col 4:16)

Therefore it was the living word which was to bring the new faith to mankind. “Whatever you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2)

There is a HUGE lack of knowledge and understanding of Christianity as a whole which has been getting far worse since the deformation…a wound in the Body of Christ for sure.

We should pray daily for unity to be restored to Christians throughout the world.

“For in proportion as man loves the Church, so has he the Holy Spirit.” -St. Augustine

God bless!

 

[Eden]

squeekster:

I’m not contending that the Bible wasn’t compiled by those in the Catholic church. But I can’t count how many Catholics I’ve run across that claim that the Catholic church wrote the Bible as if it were the Catholics themselves that originated it. The Bible is God’s Word to man and I believe that everything God wanted us to know concerning Him is in His Word.

If the Catholic bishops were guided by the Holy Spirit to set the canon at the African synods, why would you not believe that as apostolic successors, the bishops were also guided in their interpretation?

Also, by what authority did Luther legitimately remove the deuterocanonicals? He himself said he was not a prophet or directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. If every individual can interpret Scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is it possible for each individual to decide which books are inspired and which are not so that each of us can compile our own Bible?

It doesn’t make sense to me to acknowledge that the Church was given the authority to set the canon and then to reject the Church’s authority on everything else.

 

[squeekster]

Lazerlike42:

It doesn’t matter whom a teaching came from as long as it came from someone.

It doesn’t matter? Are you really serious?

Lazerlike42:

The Catholic Church has all that stuff that was taught on all of those occasions and more.

HOW do you know that? They TOLD you, right? It occurred to me that if the RCC was there as claimed, why didn’t they write all of that stuff down? That way, there would be no need for “tradition” and there would be no arguments about what was or was not taught.

Lazerlike42:

In asking which Apostle it came from, you’re really asking to see a letter written by that Apostle.

No, actually if I ask which Apostle something came from, what I want to know is who it came from. Of course, what you say is true, in that written proof would be icing on the cake and would leave nothing much to the imagination.

Lazerlike42:

The Apostles taught what they knew to their desciples, and their desciples taught it to theirs’, and so on and so on.

My whole point is simply that if a particular teaching came from Apostle ‘A’, but Apostle ‘A’ didn’t write about it and neither did Apostles ‘B’ through ‘Z’, even though they all knew about it, then how in the world do you know it ever happened? It may have originated from an “old wives tale”, started by someone with an agenda from that era. Some things more than likely escaped the eyes of the ECF’s. Remember, you said “It doesn’t matter whom a teaching came from as long as it came from someone.” So it isn’t too hard to envision some deception creeping in here and there, especially if your statement is true. Is it?

 

[E.E.N.S]

36,000 denominations? Speaking of garbage. Care to list all 36,000?

What’s funny is that this magical number of denominations is as varied as there are Catholics that mention it.

And let’s say there were only 100…would that be okay? No, there is only supposed to be One Church - for there is only One Body!

 

[Ghosty]

HOW do you know that? They TOLD you, right? It occurred to me that if the RCC was there as claimed, why didn’t they write all of that stuff down? That way, there would be no need for “tradition” and there would be no arguments about what was or was not taught.

Much of this stuff has been written down, that’s why we preserve the writings of the folks we call the Church Fathers. Catholic teaching and Doctrine is found left and right in their writings. Many of these writings date back to the second century, within the lifetimes of people who personally knew the Apostles.

 

[But_for_Grace]

Why do protestants wish to tear the body of Christ into shreds, the Lord is not divided, neither should the Chuch be as she is his mystical Body.

 

[Hildebrand]

Ghosty:

Precisely. The group of Christians that wrote down the bible had Bishops, believed in the Real Presence, confessed to priests, kept to oral tradition, had formalized rituals for Sacraments as described in the Didiche, and called themselves the Catholic Church.

I don’t see why this is so hard to understand. It’s a very basic and obvious point of history.

And wasn’t one of the reasons why the Canon of Sacred Scriptures (New and Old Testament) was organized - so as to ascertain which texts could be read from during the liturgy?

And then the Protestants reject the concept of canons, reject the Catholic Church, reject the liturgy practiced since the early Church, but take the Sacred Scriptures which was organized by the Catholic Church through the canon process so they could know which texts/books to use during the liturgy?

Do I have this correctly or am I wrong?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Hildebrand:

And wasn’t one of the reasons why the Canon of Sacred Scriptures (New and Old Testament) was organized - so as to ascertain which texts could be read from during the liturgy?

And then the Protestants reject the concept of canons, reject the Catholic Church, reject the liturgy practiced since the early Church, but take the Sacred Scriptures which was organized by the Catholic Church through the canon process so they could know which texts/books to use during the liturgy?

Do I have this correctly or am I wrong?

You are correct, as they wanted to know which books were inspired, so they could use them in the liturgy.

Only an infallible source can claim something as infallible.

 

[scylla]

We don’t worry about which apostle each teaching came from as we don’t believe tradition came from an apostle here or there. What is understood as the faith is tradition.

Here let me explain, the understanding that Jesus is God, this is a tradition of the apostles which is preserved in the Church. You share this tradition with us as it doesn’t come from the Bible. It is supported by the Bible, but this understanding was there before the Bible as a whole existed. There are people who have gotten an understanding of faith based on the Bible who do not believe in this, and that is what tradition is for to maintain the proper understanding of the faith.

It does take trust in the power of the Holy Spirit to believe in this, and you can dismiss this, or believe in it. Just as some people believe in the Bible or dismiss it by trying to explain it away. There are plenty of people who explain themselves away from believing in the Bible. But we should all search for truth, the one truth that exists. And of course that takes faith to take that leap.

Now getting back to Luther, have we explained enough about him and the understanding that people have? He was probably the primary instigator of division in stating that everyone was free to start their own church.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Hildebrand]

But for Grace:

Why do protestants wish to tear the body of Christ into shreds, the Lord is not divided, neither should the Chuch be as she is his mystical Body.

They don’t wish to, but their actions do divide us. It was Christ’s prayer for us to be one.

And it is not only Protestants who divide the Body of Christ, heretical and radical Catholics do the same.