...You might want to check with these guys about that comment....
...and they're still at it today...
Strange that those who express disdain for theological research, and the oral tradition must now use a street theology. Don’t take it from me.
What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his “Commentary On St. John,” he stated the following: “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”
Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages.
All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone.
God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture because it is His Church.
I'm sure you meant something useful here, but I have no clue what a "street theology" is, so your cleverness is lost on me. Sorry.
What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his “Commentary On St. John,” he stated the following: “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”
Actually, the text you are attempting to cite is not from a commentary on John, but from one of Luther's sermons:
Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints
But what is now our defense? And what is the ground on which we can hold our own against such offense and continue to defy those people? It is nothing else than the masterly statement St. Paul employs in Rom. 9:7: “Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.” Not all who bear the name are Israelites; or, as the saying goes: “Not all who carry long knives are cooks.” Thus not all who lay claim to the title “church” are the church. There is often a great difference between the name and the reality. The name is general. All are called God’s people, children of Abraham, Christ’s disciples and members; but this does not mean that they all are what the name signifies. For the name “church” includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey God’s Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had God’s Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been God’s people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name “church” that God was forced to say: “This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: ‘You are sons of the living God
Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy. On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s. And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.
In the meantime we adhere to the distinction made here by Christ and do not regard as Christendom those who do not hold truly and absolutely to what Christ taught, gave, and ordained, no matter how great, holy, and learned they may be. We tell them that they are the devil’s church. On the other hand, we want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in ChristHat tip to James Swan for the full discussion here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-infallible-church-declared.html
Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages.
All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone.
God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture because it is His Church.
Again, if you would kind study up on Lampe's exhaustive and scholarly study, you would be able perhaps to see that what we "street theologians" have been saying all along has been proven out by one of your educational elites: Your alleged Petrine "office" never existed in old Rome as modern Rome defines it. Lampe has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the facts because he was willing to roll up his sleeves and really work at what others were only willing to blather on about. I can respect that.
Peace,
SR
...You might want to check with these guys about that comment....
...and they're still at it today...
God used Judas, Balaam's donkey, and evil rulers as instruments to further His will on earth. Catholics trying to take credit away from God is not going to turn out well for them.
Pure, unadulterated nonsense.
Romans 3:1-2 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Scripture is from God and the Jews were the ones to whom the entire OT was given and who wrote most of the NT.
God saw to it that His word would be recorded and preserved and NOBODY can take credit for the work of God.
This absurd arrogant statement is consistent with other ones which express thinking "of men above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6) and ignores the fact that most of what we hold as Scripture was already established as such before there even was a church of Rome, even if not universally in fulness.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)
And yet it was only after Luther's death that Rome provided an indisputable, infallibly defined complete canon, while doubts and disagreements continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent .
What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his “Commentary On St. John,” he stated the following: “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”
If you are going to paste papist polemics the quote mine Luther, at least try to see if it is substantiated and if so, look at the context (as i usually practice with Cath. quotes) to see if it is saying what it is employed for.
And if you did then you should see by God's grace that this actually part of a polemic that renders Rome no more worthy of assent than the Jews.
For indeed, if being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium then the NT is invalidates, as the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus the whole "the Catholic Church gave you the Bible=it knows what it means" polemic that RCs constantly employ is what is invalid. As is Rome, as its basis for assurance of Truth, that being the premise of her assured veracity, is fundamentally contrary to how the NT church began.
Once more an attempted defense of Rome is an argument against being an RC.