T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Unbelievers are incapable of doing this.
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Grace is a free gift to all. They may accept or reject it.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
They cannot accept it unless it is given to them.
M
Mickey
Guest
It is offered to all.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
M
Mickey
Guest
What does that mean to you?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
That man’s flesh, that is, his natural state of being, can do nothing toward that which is pleasing to God nor can it approach God in faith (because it is dead in trespasses and sins). The Spirit of God gives life to man, and as a result man comes to Christ in faith through the power of the word.
M
Mickey
Guest
Amen brother! Bravo! You cannot believe how many times I have seen protestants use John 6:63 to argue for a symbolic-only metaphorical Eucharist.
Yes. The Spirit of God gives life. The flesh is subject to the passions.
But God has not squashed our free will. It is His gift to us.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Blah. I suppose they don’t realize they’re saying Jesus’ flesh profits nothing. It seems His flesh saved mankind. It also saves us every time we receive it in the Lord’s Supper.
The free will of man is in bondage to his sinful nature. That, ultimately, is the crux of the matter.
S
steve_b
Guest
On balance, do you think your being an ex Catholic does NOT effect YOU when you rebut Catholic beliefs now?
I think this is a perfect place for a reciprocal examination of anti, and non Catholic beliefs, and where those beliefs came from and who they came from.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
I’m sure – but again it still relies on ex post facto “clarifications” of doctrine to make past practices consistent with current doctrine.
Fair enoughMy rejection of the odd doctrine is based on Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the undivided apostolic Church in the first millenium.
I do not need Galileo to know that it was a bad idea.
M
Mickey
Guest
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Not being able to choose Christ is being in bondage to sin. The sinful nature rejects Christ; that affects the free will decisions of man. Man does not approach God from a neutral state. He approaches the subject of God from one of hostility. His sinful nature is in rebellion against God and if left to his own devices will always reject God. God must act first to free the man from his bondage to sin. God does through the preaching of the word and the giving of the sacraments. Once the will is liberated from its bondage to sin through Baptism or the proclamation of the Gospel - that is when passages like Romans 6 applies. We can now freely love God and serve our neighbor.
How is choosing Christ being in bondage to sin?
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
Indeed? Well then, grace tells me the reformers were bad!
Not that it would matter what Luther did?!!
Ah, the truth finally comes out! Luther et al can live as immorally as they please. Doesn’t matter. They are still “great reformers” in you estimation!
But can you really believe this? Do you really mean to say that no amount of immorality or wickedness – no amount!- on the part of the reformers could ever arouse in your mind even the least suspicion that perhaps, just perhaps, they were not God’s instruments of reform at all, but rather, false teachers?
Well, alright.
Against the innocent blood of the Catholics, Luther rages:
History of the Popes, Ludwig von Pastor, vol. 7, p. 393.
books.google.com/books?id=Y1QZaRY6Q4UC&pg=PA393&dq=luther+%22wash+our+hands+in+their+blood%22&lr=&ei=wAyzSKOSL5yMjAHyjOwY
The Latin reads:
“et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus”
“Wash our hands in their blood”
D. Martini Lutheri opera Latina varii argumenti, volumes 1&2, 1865, Henricus Schmidt, Frankfort-on-the-Main & Erlanger, Published by Carl Heyder & H. Zimmer, vol. 2, p. 107.
books.google.com/books?id=5tICAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA457&dq=luther+varii+Opera++%22volumen+II%22&lr=&as_brr=0&client=firefox-a
books.google.com/books?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=si+latrones+gladio,+si+haereticos&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&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%22si%20latrones%20gladio%2C%20si%20haereticos%22
And then there were savage woodcuts such as this:
Digna Merces Papae Satanissimi et Cardinalium Suorum (Just Reward for the Most Satanic Pope and his Cardinals)
thumbsnap.com/v/zNyccH8F.jpg
The caption reads:
“Wenn zeitlich gestrafft solt werden,
Bapst vnd Cardinell auf Erden.
Ir lesterzung verdienet hett:
Wie jr recht gemalet steht.”
“If the Pope and Cardinals were to receive
Temporal punishment on earth,
Their blasphemous tongues would deserve,
What is rightly depicted here.”
In addition to this vile drawing, Luther wrote against the peasants:
Against the Robbing and Murdering Peasants,
Works of Martin Luther, , A. J. Holman and Company and the Castle Press, Philadelphia, Penn. 1931, volume IV, p. 253.
archive.org/details/worksofmartinlut009638mbp
books.google.com/books?id=RBEaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA162&dq=%22peasants+have+deserved+death+for+three+reasons%22&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=PxSzSO2iIIziiwGv6akp#PPA163,M1
Moreover, Luther was just as ferocious against the Jews. This is from the Wikipedia article, On the Jews and Their Lies:
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
The only truth I see exposed here is your hate and resentment?
Let’s have a contest. If I can prove the Popes and clergy of the RCC were more wicked more often than the reformers then I win? This of course is the standard you’re creating – so let’s have at it shall we? I’m gleefully confident I’ll win this one any day of the week.
Still not a direct order – just showed he came to hate the RCC.
Is it my turn yet to raise the issue of sins committed by Catholic Popes or clergy?
Tens of thousands of pre-teen boys raped, Medici Popes scaring the last nickel out of peasants to free their dead relatives from purgatory, the crusades, the inquisition, golly I’m just getting started. Is this really the road you want to travel down?
I’d rather not … in fact I think I’ll ignore your hate and bigotry from now on.
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
No SS, there’s no “hate and resentment” here on my part whatsoever. On the contrary, I’m posting out of a love for the truth.
All I’m doing is simply trying to provide well documented historical facts which clearly and understandably however, you would prefer not to hear. You are, perhaps for the first time, being shown a side of the reformers that’s been hidden from you. You are being given a glimpse into a world you probably have never known. You are seeing an aspect of the reformers that is shocking to any decent mind i. e., their immorality and violence! And you simply have no way to refute that fact.
Your only defense is to say, “Not that it would matter what Luther did”.
But I’m here to tell you my friend, it does matter, and it matters very much. Perhaps you can explain it all to Christ when your time comes. Yes, tell Him it doesn’t matter how many wives the reformers had, or permitted others to have.Maybe you somehow feel threatened. Maybe that’s why you lash out. I don’t know, I can’t read your heart.
Now, as I’ve said before, Luther, when not raging, was in his own way a likable fellow. And he said some very good things, particularly about the Mother of God. But that doesn’t excuse his immoral behavior, that not does justify his permitting a man to have two wives and to commit countless other serious breaches of the moral law, none of which he apparently ever repented of!
And the very thought of Christians permitting each other to have several wives would have been an abomination to the holy Fathers: St. Basil, for example, wrote:
Letter 217.newadvent.org/fathers/3202217.htm
And the assertion that he and his fellow reformers never repented is something which you have yet to refute. If you can refute it however, I’ll have a better opinion of that crew. And I’ll offer an apology to boot!
But I suspect that I’ll have a long wait indeed before any evidence of repentance among the reformers surfaces.
I’ve already stated to you before that I’m more than willing to have a discussion of the immoral and scandalous lives of certain Catholic churchmen. We can compare and contrast their lives with those of the reformers! So let the games begin!
Good heavens, how do define a “direct order??” And yes, hate he did, just as the immoral and self-righteous Pharisees hated Christ!
Is it my turn yet to raise the issue of sins committed by Catholic Popes or clergy?
“Tens of thousands”? Where did you get that number? According to Wikipedia, the numbers are in hundreds, not thousands!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
And to what do attribute this, may I ask?
In any event, raise all you want! We Catholics however, *do not *honor such wicked individuals with the titles of “great reformers.” Nor would we ever say any reform movement of theirs - except that of their moral lives - was “decreed by God.”
Now Scripture bids us:
“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11
All I’ve done is expose a tiny fraction of the reformers immorality. And I’ve done so in order to show that they could not possibly have been chosen vessels God to reform his Church!
Again, I hate no one, not even the reformers. I do hate their dishonesty however, and their vicious attacks against all who disagreed with them, and their pride, and most of all, their hypocrisy.
You should too. Peace.
None of us win this one, because it only tends to divide us further, making Christ’s desire of unity that much more difficult. Only Satan wins, as he revels in our disunity.
Jon
M
Mickey
Guest
How do you know that some are not able to choose Christ? Do you read the hearts and minds of men?
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
My only mistake was responding and taking the bait in the first place – I should have ignored it.
- Status