Posted on 11/29/2014 4:30:23 PM PST by BlatherNaut
“Luther did follow that lesson.”
No, he followed his own lusts.
“He stood fearlessly for Truth no matter the cost,”
No, he followed his own lusts no matter what the costs to others. Hence, his handling of the Peasants’ Revolt.
“and the Body of Christ was enriched, and many were brought to the plain Truth of the Gospel.”
No, people were tricked by heresy and abandoned the Christian faith of their forefathers for a man-made substitute - which might not have ever been invented if not for Luther’s own problems.
“I do not hold as you do that Rome is the only arbiter of truth.”
If you’re going to accuse me of something at least get it right: I believe God is the arbiter of truth and He has given authority to His Church (Luke 10:16).
“There is much error in Rome that needs to be pointed out and addressed.”
There is no doctrinal error in the Church - the Church is Christ’s Body.
Oh, you accurately represent your position, I'll definitely give you that.
Well as I can't remember the last time I invoked my understanding of Christ to defend mass murder, yes, I guess I'd say they are different.
“Catholics can’t shed their doctrine in totality, so no chance of communion with real Lutherans.”
We won’t shed any of it and there aren’t any real Lutherans as it is. All the Lutherans I know would never say the following as Luther did:
“Although it would be possible to SAVE the epistle by a gloss giving it a correct explanation of Justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer Moses word in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith , just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This defect proves that the epistle is not of Apostolic provenance.”
Luther, Preface to the Epistle of St. James, 1522
“In sum, he wished to guard against those who depended on faith without going on to works, but he [St. James] had neither the spirit nor the thought nor the eloquence equal to the task.”
Luther, 1522, preface of James
“He does violence to Scripture and so contradicts Paul and all scripture.”
Luther, 1522 Translation, Preface to James
“I therefore refuse him [James] a place among the writers of the true canon of my bible”
Luther, 1522 Translation, Preface to James
“Hence, although I value the book, yet it is NOT essential to reckon it among the canonical books that lay the foundation of faith.”
Luther, 1522 translation, Preface to Jude
“Oh, you accurately represent your position, I’ll definitely give you that.”
I post the truth accurately and consistently. Protestant anti-Catholics really can’t do it consistently and have almost comprehension of what “accurately” means.
Well bingo, thereyago.
We won’t shed any of it and there aren’t any real Lutherans as it is.
I know you won't, that's why there is no chance of communion with Rome.
“James was a disputed book,”
Apparently not to Luther!
“Luther not the only one who questioned its provenance.”
He’s the one who started an heretical sect, one that was based on “sola scriptura”. Oh, the irony of starting a sect based on sola scriptura while cutting books out of the Bible!
“Common practice amongst Bible scholars of the period.”
How many of them invented sola scriptura and started an heretical sect supposedly based on it? Oh, that’s right. Just one. Luther.
“I know you won’t, that’s why there is no chance of communion with Rome.”
Lutherans will come to the Church on their own. They have for centuries. http://www.amazon.com/There-Stood-Here-Stand-Rediscover/dp/0759613206
Thousands of Anglicans have come home and so will many Lutherans. I know three former Lutheran ministers who have become Catholics, for instance.
Albigensian Crusade.
A good thing, or an evil thing?
“Albigensian Crusade. A good thing, or an evil thing?”
Catharism - a heresy that denies Christ and the Trinity, and inspired its members to commit acts of violence against Catholics. A good thing, or an evil thing?
Almost as ironic as a Catholic lamenting under use of the Bible.
I know three former Lutheran ministers who have become Catholics, for instance.
You can have the elcas, except for the morality issues, they are much like Catholics.
How many of them invented sola scriptura and started an heretical sect supposedly based on it? Oh, that’s right. Just one. Luther.
Very good! The rest didn't know what they were reading. God's Word vs man's/Satan's, pretty easy choice for Scriptura.
Now there's a loaded, INaccurate definition if I ever saw one. But it does ACCURATELY represent the Catholic position.
Nevertheless, one is a belief system, the other is genocide. I reject your definition of the Cathars on multiple grounds, and I do not see how their existence deserved extermination. Disagreement and rejection by the Church, certainly, in fact by definition. But then, any number of faiths, especially in the Middle Ages, had the qualities you describe against the Cathars. So why were the Cathars alone wiped out? Mere convenience? Would it have been appropriate for the Church to exterminate the entire non- Catholic world if possible?
Was the extermination of the Cathars evil, or not?
“Almost as ironic as a Catholic lamenting under use of the Bible.”
There is no irony there. I lament the fact that Christians (including Protestants) don’t read, study and pray the scriptures more often. Don’t you lament that? I spent more than 2 hours today with 30 to 40 Christians talking about the Bible. Some of them are Protestants - including one woman whose husband is a Protestant pastor - the rest were Catholics. We discussed the catechism’s teachings on the Bible (CCC 101-133), practiced Lectio Divina (Genesis 22), and then used Genesis 22 to discuss the four senses of scripture and used the Good Samaritan story and Genesis 22 to discuss typology. We had a great time. Still, many of them admitted they don’t spend as much time with scripture as they should. I think that is lamentable. So does the Church.
“You can have the elcas, except for the morality issues, they are much like Catholics.”
Oh, so have you concluded - based on nothing - that the Lutheran ministers were ministers in ELCA? Only one was. One was LCMS, the other was CLC. Do you even know what CLC is?
“Very good! The rest didn’t know what they were reading. God’s Word vs man’s/Satan’s, pretty easy choice for Scriptura.”
So no one before Luther knew anything about the Bible? Really? You probably don’t believe there was a successful landing on the moon either.
“Now there’s a loaded, INaccurate definition if I ever saw one.”
I posted no definition. I posted a perfectly accurate description. How many reputable books on the Cathars have you read? Any at all? Even one? The Cathars’ denial of the Trinity is well known. It’s discussed by scholars all over the place. I just noticed recently that it even found it’s way into John Marshall’s John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (page 221 if you’re interested).
“But it does ACCURATELY represent the Catholic position.”
So you’re now saying that the Catholic Church denies the Trinity? Have any proof for that?
“Nevertheless, one is a belief system, the other is genocide.”
No. Catharism was an evil heresy which encouraged sinfulness. The other was a war against a violent sect of heretics (Catharism).
“I reject your definition of the Cathars on multiple grounds, and I do not see how their existence deserved extermination.”
It doesn’t matter what you “reject”. Your opinion is meaningless. Again, how many reputable books on the Cathars have you EVER even read? If you say ZERO, then you’re admitting you know nothing about the subject which you yourself raised. Is that the case?
“Disagreement and rejection by the Church, certainly, in fact by definition. But then, any number of faiths, especially in the Middle Ages, had the qualities you describe against the Cathars.”
Actually, no. Few did and none had the beliefs peculiar to the Cathars of course. I have a PhD in Medieval History. This is part of what I studied. I doubt that’s the case for you. Again, most likely you know nothing or next to nothing about the subject. Is that the case?
“So why were the Cathars alone wiped out?”
They were not wiped out by the crusade. Many were killed in the fighting but we know thousands survived for decades afterward - hence, the inquisitions of the early 14th century. The last Cathars were reconciled or died in their beds.
“Mere convenience?”
No, it is clear the crusade was called because of violence on the part of the Cathars.
“Would it have been appropriate for the Church to exterminate the entire non- Catholic world if possible?”
No, and all Cathars in the West were baptized Catholics so the Catholic world was policing the Catholic world. Anyone who takes the time to actually read medieval Church documents would know the Catholic Church never saw as just warfare on a people merely for being non-Catholic. That is why - even though the Catholic Church launched crusades against Muslim conquered territory in the Levant (for it had been Christian territory and pilgrimage sites abounded there), the Church accepted the Muslim rule of many regions as legitimate. Have you read those documents? Do you even know them? I bet not.
“Was the extermination of the Cathars evil, or not?”
Was Catharism evil or not?
Not my first rodeo. From your huge sample, a third were elca.
So no one before Luther knew anything about the Bible? Really?
Of course they did, but their clarity was rejected in favor of the man-made traditions and un-scriptural practice that followed as the Catholic church sought temporal power. Controlling access to the Word of God became the norm and the people were denied the Word as God would have it communicated.
“Not my first rodeo.”
Apparently it is.
“From your huge sample, a third were elca.”
Where did I ever say it was “huge”? And weren’t you the one who not only brought up the ELCA but also implied they must all be from ELCA? “You can have the elcas, except for the morality issues, they are much like Catholics.”
So you were wrong then and are wrong now. Get used to it.
“Of course they did, but their clarity was rejected in favor of the man-made traditions and un-scriptural practice that followed as the Catholic church sought temporal power.”
No. The Catholic Church certainly possessed then and now more clarity about scripture than Luther ever did - that’s why his views kept evolving. His treatment of the canon shows he lacked clarity to say the least.
“Controlling access to the Word of God became the norm and the people were denied the Word as God would have it communicated.”
Really? You KNOW how God wants the Word of God communicated and you KNOW it was different than the way His Church was doing it? Really? What proof have you for that?
Also, you never responded to this point:
“There is no irony there. I lament the fact that Christians (including Protestants) don’t read, study and pray the scriptures more often. Don’t you lament that?”
Well, do you lament it or not?
And, of course, you didn’t respond to this either: “Do you even know what CLC is?” Well, do you?
You didn't, you were just so proud of your three person sample I wanted you to feel good about it.
You KNOW how God wants the Word of God communicated and you KNOW it was different than the way His Church was doing it? Really? What proof have you for that?
You probably won't accept the source, but the Word of God itself is replete with admonition to read, to write, to preach the Word of God. Christ Himself modeled the use of Scripture. Since it is His Word and His Church, He is the best model for it. Keeping Scripture from the vernacular, restricting its use to the clergy etc are not methods of emulating Christ's use of His Word.
Of course I lament the lack of Scripture reading and private worship amongst Christians. It is the Holy Spirit's job to amend that.
“Do you even know what CLC is?” Well, do you?
Please.
“You didn’t, you were just so proud of your three person sample I wanted you to feel good about it.”
Maybe you should spend more time wanting to get things right instead.
“You probably won’t accept the source, but the Word of God itself is replete with admonition to read, to write, to preach the Word of God.”
Yes, but I asked you: “You KNOW how God wants the Word of God communicated and you KNOW it was different than the way His Church was doing it? Really? What proof have you for that?”
Christians were reading, writing about and preaching the Word of God long before the first Protestant walked the earth in his heresy. So, in other words, you have no answer to my questions? No surprise.
“Christ Himself modeled the use of Scripture. Since it is His Word and His Church, He is the best model for it.”
Yet you’re not truly a part of His Church, just a Protestant sect.
“Keeping Scripture from the vernacular, restricting its use to the clergy etc are not methods of emulating Christ’s use of His Word.”
The scriptures were in the vernacular and continued to be. Their use was never restricted to the clergy either and since up to one-fourth of men in some parts of Christian Europe were clergy at times how would that work anyway? Have you ever read a single book about the Bible in the Middle Ages? Even one?
“Of course I lament the lack of Scripture reading and private worship amongst Christians. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to amend that.”
Oh, so since you say it is the Holy Spirit’s job you would never then blame me right? Yet, you just did. Not a very consistent view is it?
“Please.”
Do you or don’t you know what CLC is? Go ahead and post what it is.
You present three samples, as if they are anything but anecdotal, just not wowed by the sampling, and now I'm wrong because I said it was huge.
What proof have you for that?”
The proof is the plain words of Scripture. Like I said you wouldn't like it, likely because I had no Catholic to interpret it. I still don't nor do I need one.
Yet you’re not truly a part of His Church
Again, Catholic pov, not in accordance with God's Word. It has been centuries since Christians cowered in their homes awaiting Catholic persecution and caring what they had to say about God and salvation, not so today, for good reason. Catholics sold that concern for the money to raise St Peter's in Rome. Now the Catholic leadership continues to disappoint to the point of cavorting with Islam.
The scriptures were in the vernacular and continued to be. Their use was never restricted to the clergy either and since up to one-fourth of men in some parts of Christian Europe were clergy at times how would that work anyway? Have you ever read a single book about the Bible in the Middle Ages? Even one?
Again, your knowledge of church history and proclamations is lacking. This claim has been refuted so many times on FR that it is a stereotype of a papal syncophant. Doesn't wash now either.
Oh, so since you say it is the Holy Spirit’s job you would never then blame me right? Yet, you just did. Not a very consistent view is it?
It is the HS job, you haven't been moved to ask for that help to do God's will. So He hasn't helped you. Very consistent.
Do you or don’t you know what CLC is? Go ahead and post what it is.
Again please. As a Johnny come lately knower of all Lutheranism CLC may be a big deal to you, some of us have lived through the discussion. At any rate, if you have a desire to post the gouge on the CLC please do so, not my job to answer to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.