J
joe370
Guest
Is that all you got!!!
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
**No pity necessary; just disagree and move on… **
J
joe370
Guest
Can you say hypocrisy; I finally did as a former Lutheran?
Luther’s doctrines and teachings have some undesirable side-effects which are not usually considered by Protestants. A typical response of Protestants when confronted with these is to deny that they follow Luther’s teachings but, rather, that they follow the Bible. But this response is a weak one when you consider that Luther’s doctrines form the basis for Protestantism. Luther was the first to come up with the following doctrines (although Protestants will typically wrongly ascribe some of them to Church Fathers such as Augustine):
Code:
* Sola Fide (salvation by faith only)
* Sola Scriptura (scripture only; not tradition)
* Predestination (only some are chosen for heaven)
* Assurance of salvation
* Total depravity (no good works are possible before salvation)
* The Catholic Church is apostate ( no big surprise there being that M.L. was a dissenter)
* Any believer can correctly interpret scripture (that's worked out well; thousands of competing interpretations)
* Ordained ministers (anyone can be ordained if they believe they are "called")
* The church is a visible human institution (but it is not a unified institution; unity is the hallmark of the bible)
* The supreme importance of preaching (violates sola scriptura)While Luther claimed to place the scripture as the highest authority (Sola Scriptura), in actuality he placed his interpretation of scripture above scripture itself. He wrote a Catechism which he claimed embodied the essential doctrines and practices that all Christians should believe and follow.
Christians, but Especially to All Pastors and Preachers, that They Should Daily Exercise Themselves in the Catechism, which is a Short Summary and Epitome of the Entire Holy Scriptures, and that They May Always Teach the Same. What happened to sola scriptura???
The Large Catechism, 1530 A.D.
In other words, Luther believed that his interpretation of the Bible was the correct one and that Christians should learn it. Not only should they believe his interpretation but they should meditate on it daily. This includes pastors and preachers as well as the common (lay) people.
And what else are such supercilious, presumptuous saints, who are unwilling to read and study the Catechism daily, doing than esteeming themselves much more learned than God Himself with all His saints, angels [patriarchs], prophets, apostles, and all Christians.
The Large Catechism, 1530 A.D.
Actually it is Luther who considers himself more learned since he wrote the Catechism. In this passage Luther seems to regard his Catechism very highly, even higher than the scripture from which it is derived. It contradicts Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura (scripture only) to require a Catechism at all, especially if it is to be read and studied daily.
Then follows the sermon, on the Gospel of the Sunday or Holyday: and I think that, where the German Postills are in use throughout the year, it were best to order the Postill of the day, either whole or part, to be read out of the book to the people; not merely for the preacher’s sake who can do no better, but as a safeguard against fanatics and sectaries,–a custom of which one may see traces in the Homilies at Mattins. Otherwise, where there is no spiritual understanding, and the Spirit himself speaks not through the preacher (though I set no limits to the preacher; for the Spirit can teach better than any Postills or Homilies) the end of it will be that every man will preach what he likes; and, instead of the Gospel and its exposition, they will be preaching once more about blue ducks! There are further reasons why we keep the Epistles and Gospels as they are arranged in the Postills, because there are but few inspired preachers who can handle a whole Gospel or other book with force and profit.
The German Mass and Order of Divine Service, 1526 A.D., Section 3,iii,h
Luther gives several reasons why all preachers should preach from the Postills:
Code:
* The preachers can't improve on them
* As a safeguard against heresy (but what about Sola Scriptura to safeguard against heresy?)
* The Spirit doesn't speak through preachers
* Preachers don't stay on topic and preach about blue ducks
* There are few inspired preachers...wasthepoperight.blogspot.com/2007/07/martin-luther-and-bible.html
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Please read church history.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I think it is good if this religious book is considered open for everybody to read it and make use of it. The Protestants and JWs if they want to read it; they should be allowed.
We Muslim don’t claim it; as all the essential, peaceful and truthful teachings of Jesus have been revealed again by GodAllahYHWH in the peaceful Quran in a better way. We hardly need it; though sometimes we do it only on invitations of our CatholicProtestantJWs friends.
Thanks
H
Hisalone
Guest
The part where innocent Christians were murdered for attempting to own a bible?
J
JRKH
Guest
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
How about starting from the beginning?
from the time of the apostles then, their successors up to this day.
leave your bitterness behind, your bias history and find the true history of the Church. for example start before ML even existed. as you know he did not began christianity neither did calvin or others in germany.
PEACE
H
Hisalone
Guest
Jan Hus
William Tyndale
J
JRKH
Guest
Of course all should read it. This is not in question. The entire point of this discussion is that the Bible was developed within the Tradition of the Catholic Church and needs to be understood within that Tradition.
The Catechism, writings of the saints, etc are readily available for anyone to read as well, yet no one would think to consider them outside of the Tradition in which they were developed.
Same goes for the Bible.
Peace
James
M
mercygate
Guest
You said “innocent Christians”. Hus and Tyndale had a lot more going on than “owning a Bible.”
What is your source, please?
H
Hisalone
Guest
Tyndale was a man of heroic stature and died a martyr’s death. In England alone, more than 1,000 people were burned between 1400 and 1557 for the sake of the Gospel. Tyndale’s books and tracts (or “pestilent glosses” as his enemies referred to them) were smuggled into England wrapped in bales of wool or cloth, or sacks of flour by fellow “Lollards”. Had he remained a Catholic priest Tyndale would no doubt have been canonized as a saint, but had he remained a Catholic he would not have attempted to translate the Bible without official sanction. Although the Bible was available in the vernacular in much of Europe, the only version of the Scripture tolerated in England was St. Jerome’s Latin translation which dated back to the 4th century. It was thus a closed book even to most clergymen. Tyndale was determined to make God’s Word accessible to all men.
T h e “C r i m e s” o f W i l l i a m T y n d a l e . . .
First: He maintains that faith alone justifies.
Second: He maintains that to believe in the forgiveness of sins and to embrace
the mercy offered in the Gospel, is enough for salvation.
Third: He avers that human traditions cannot bind the conscience, except
where their neglect might occasion scandal.
Fourth: He denies the freedom of the will.
Fifth: He denies that there is any purgatory.
Sixth: He affirms that neither the Virgin nor the Saints pray for us in their
own person.
Seventh: He asserts that neither the Virgin nor the Saints should be invoked by us.
williamtyndale.com/0crimesofwilliamtyndale.htm
J
JRKH
Guest
Elitism? No
History? Yes
I appreciate that you don’t want to read through 24 pages of posts, it would be a daunting task.
As to the charge that somehow the Church “forbade the common people from owning and reading their own scriptures”, This is a gross misstatement.
First, is the Historical Fact that thoughout much of history literacy rates were low. Therefore most people wouldn’t have been able to read the Scriptures even if they could get a copy.
Second, is the fact that the printing press is a relatively recent invention. Before which Bibles were hand copied, taking a great deal of time and, as a result, Bibles were expensive, so only a few people could afford them. On a CD by Steven Ray he states that a Bible in those days would be equivelant of 3 years wages.
Third, is the fact that, after the Protestant Reformation there came to be any number of “unauthorized” translations of the Bible. Ones where Books were left out and Words like “Alone” were added to the text. These editions of the Bible were indeed forbidden for they are heretical.
A similar example today would be the Watchtower edition of the Bible, where John 1:1 reads "…and the word was AGod. Would you want to place your faith on such a book? Yet it goes by the same title as all the other Bibles out there. It is “THE HOLY BIBLE”.
Again I say, I realize that you don’t want to read through 24 pages of posts, but please stick around and we’ll help you get by some of the errors you have been fed about the Church.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Can you be more specific?
H
Hisalone
Guest
[edit] Dying Prophecy
Amongst Hus’ last words are allegedly that, “in a hundred years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses of Contention to a church door in Wittenberg 102 years later.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus
Meanwhile, Huss had begun to denounce various church abuses in his sermons. His disputes with authority did not concern basic theological issues, but rather matters of church discipline and practice. The custom had arisen, at celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, of distributing the consecrated bread to all Christians in good standing who desired to receive it, but restricting the chalice to the celebrant alone. Huss denounced this restriction as contrary to Holy Scripture and to the ancient tradition of the Church. He also held that Church officials ought to exercise spiritual powers only, and not be earthly governors. In 1412 his archbishop excommunicated him, not for heresy, but for insubordination. (The real problem was that Huss supported one papal claimant and the archbishop another. Huss’s candidate was ultimately declared to be the true pope.) Matters came to a head when one claimant (later declared unfit) proclaimed a sale of indulgences to raise money for a war against his rivals. Huss was horrified at the idea of selling spiritual benefits to finance a war between two claimants to the title “Servant of the Servants of God,” and said so.
justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/7.html
Amongst Hus’ last words are allegedly that, “in a hundred years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses of Contention to a church door in Wittenberg 102 years later.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus
Meanwhile, Huss had begun to denounce various church abuses in his sermons. His disputes with authority did not concern basic theological issues, but rather matters of church discipline and practice. The custom had arisen, at celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, of distributing the consecrated bread to all Christians in good standing who desired to receive it, but restricting the chalice to the celebrant alone. Huss denounced this restriction as contrary to Holy Scripture and to the ancient tradition of the Church. He also held that Church officials ought to exercise spiritual powers only, and not be earthly governors. In 1412 his archbishop excommunicated him, not for heresy, but for insubordination. (The real problem was that Huss supported one papal claimant and the archbishop another. Huss’s candidate was ultimately declared to be the true pope.) Matters came to a head when one claimant (later declared unfit) proclaimed a sale of indulgences to raise money for a war against his rivals. Huss was horrified at the idea of selling spiritual benefits to finance a war between two claimants to the title “Servant of the Servants of God,” and said so.
justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/7.html
J
JRKH
Guest
I see a great deal here that speaks to what “Tindale Believes” and precious little that says the Bible is not a Catholic Book, which is the point of the thread.
It’s easy for any writer to paint his own agenda in glowing terms. That is necessary for understanding the truth is to look at all of History in a given time. You have read some history that supports your (or rather Tindale’s) view, but have you also read of the Political, Economic, Military, and Nationalistic forces that were also at work in those turbulant times? I don’t doubt that there were many people killed by both Catholics and Protestants over the centuries in the “name of the Gospel”. But whether they were killed for their religion, or for more political reasons is much more difficult to determine.
Just food for thought.
Read History - Read History - Read Lots of History.
Peace
James
H
Hisalone
Guest
The tradition of selling indulgences?
The tradition of setting up false witness in order to burn men and women to death(see Jan Hus)?
The tradition of minding the affairs of civil and state authoritie and not the things of the spirit?
Those traditions?
Your false claim for apostolic succession is just that false.
J
JRKH
Guest
None of which supports your assertion that people were killed for owning a Bible, nor does it nagate the origons of the bible.
What it does point up is that there were some practices within the Church that needed addressed, which the Church will readily admit. The Church is, after all, a Hospital for Sinners.
Peace
James
R
Ronald_E
Guest
I agree there have been poor leaders and abuses in the Church. Jesus was born into such a history. Reform is always needed as our understanding of our faith deepens. However, Jesus did not want separation and division. He wanted us to be as one in love as He and His Father are one. I have no problem with disagreement. It is the fragmenting and separation of our Church that weakens all of us and this fragmentation is the result of unconscious and unforgiven sin that led to rebellion in the 15th and 16th centuries. This is exactly what evil desires; divide them and let them argue among themselves.
J
JRKH
Guest
You did not address any of the points to which your response was attached.
Now as to the other aspect of “minding the affairs of civil…authorities”, how is that any different than our own time with “The Religious Right”.
Peace
James
This was not a tradition - It was a practice. There is a great difference. The practice occurred for a relatively short time and was disposed of.
Again, this is not a tradition. The facts may well be that certain sinful people bore, or caused others to bear, false witness. However this does not equate in any way to Church Teaching.
Now, one might call this a tradition in the sense that, as those in government became Christian the Church naturally gained in stature. Also one can take into account that the Church stood as a bulwark, during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, against the various barbarian tribes invading the empire. The Church proper, as well as many individual catholics performed many heroic works of charity during this time. It was Her work during these “Dark Ages” that ultimately resulted in a Christian Europe instead of one that worshipped trees.
Now as to the other aspect of “minding the affairs of civil…authorities”, how is that any different than our own time with “The Religious Right”.
Actually, nothing you stated above is “Church Tradition”
Maybe, but my true claim for apostolic succession is just that ** true**
Peace
James
- Status