I am so glad, truly, to hear that. All that room now to deposit the below and get it out of your head:
Posted on 03/24/2015 12:27:30 PM PDT by Gamecock
There have been threads against Protestants on this site forever. There have been remarks that if anyone does not follow Rome, that person will not go to heaven. Calvin saw the errors of those beliefs and changed them. I was halfway watching a show a few weeks ago. It was discussing Calvin and how he thought indulgences were very wrong so he did what was right and tried to right a wrong. I believe he was right.
Seems they are all there:
"Sola" means "only" ... as in sole survivor is lone survivor minus the books James, Hebrew, Jude and Revelation.
...minus the books James, Hebrew, Jude and Revelation.
Nonsense. ALL of these four books are listed in Luther's translation of the Bible:
Yes, at one point Luther had some misgivings on these books. But the Reformation didn't occur in a moment. Luther himself had to transition out of being trained in monk "monkery" (as he referenced it) into the reformer God utilized.
Examples of how he "came around" on these other books:
minus the books...Hebrews...
Martin Luther on Hebrews: "... a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ's priesthood masterfully and profoundly on the basis of the Scriptures and extensively interprets the Old Testament in a fine way."
http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_ProcServ/dbpage=page&mode=display&gid=20052995655655607101111555&pg=20053492847576091301111555
minus...the books...Revelation...
"When Luther began, he was uncomfortable with the Book of Revelation. But as the Reformation went on and more and more opponents sprang up, he had difficulty, he became more and more interested in Revelation. And later in his life, he took it with the utmost seriousness, and even tried to figure out all the symbolism in it, to determine when the end of the world was going to come.
Mark Edwards, Jr.:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinluther.html
This is no different than many new preachers coming out of seminary or Bible school who take a while to start preaching from the Book of Revelation.
Good article ...
Thanks GC.
Actually, for the first 600 years, the Roman church was only a small part in the great sea of Christendom. Rome's invention of the primacy of the papacy was a late addition to Roman dogma. So if you used lowercase catholicism, it's probably closer to the truth.
Rome adopted the synod(s) at which the canon was compiled in the 4th centuries, not the other way around. The primacy of the papacy dogma had not been articulated at the time the canon was completed, unless you're also counting the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books added in the counter-Reformation.
That said, I agree that the Roman church is Christian and the title is offensive. I don't like or agree with the Chick-tracts libels that are applied to the doctrinal differences that arose within European Christendom in the 16th century.
Good analogy.
What if the GOP faithful came up to you and said: "but we gave you the Constitution."
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20; )
Catholics, Mormons, Buddists,JW's, Christian Scientists etc...etc...
(They'll all fit in that tiny space. Really.)
No swimming pool necessary
Not as long as you have the Tiber
(just a light hearted joke)
I am so glad, truly, to hear that. All that room now to deposit the below and get it out of your head:
Catholics were taking credit for the Declaration of Independence just a day ago:
The fact is that in terms of the Declaration of Independence for most part “the principles enunciated in it are identically the political thought and theory predominant and traditional among representative Catholic churchmen, and not the political thought and inspiration of the politico-religious revolt of the sixteenth century, nor of the later social-contract or compact theories”....As opposed to:
-- from the thread Did the Catholic Church really support the Divine Right of Kings?
History is eloquent in declaring that the American republican democracy was born of Christianity and that form of Christianity was Calvinism. The great revolutionary conflict which resulted in the founding of this nation was carried out mainly by Calvinists--many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian college of Princeton........In fact, most of the early American culture was Reformed or tied strongly to it (just read the New England Primer). Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a Roman Catholic intellectual and National Review contributor, asserts: “If we call the American statesmen of the late eighteenth century the Founding Fathers of the United States, then the Pilgrims and Puritans were the grandfathers and Calvin the great-grandfather…”
-- from the thread John Calvin: Religious liberty and Political liberty
Nope, almost never . . .
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church
The man himself, not so much.
Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and an manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom. . . . Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism. . . . She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets”
and also:
“Usury, drunkenness, adultery—these crimes are self-evident and the world knows that they are sinful; but that bride of the Devil, `Reason', stalks abroad, the fair courtesan, and wishes to be considered wise, and thinks that whatever she says comes from the Holy Ghost. She is the most dangerous harlot the Devil has.”
And let's not forget his limpidly beautiful words on the Jews: redolent of true spirituality.
"My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...
Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...
Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...
Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it..."
And in another place:
"Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand...
If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them."
And this startling take on Christ's command to baptize the whole world in the name of the Trinity:
"If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham."
Also an intriguing admonition apparently straight from the Book of Esther:
"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves."
If the 20,000 sects of Protestantism want to follow this vile, hateful man then that's up to them. I don't think we want any part of him.
Yes, those books are included in the Luther Bible, but only because his followers insisted they remain in it. Nonetheless, he made sure they were placed at the end, where they still remain in the German Bible.
Luther loved parts of the Bible, and had an incredible contempt for other parts of the Bible. “James is an Epistle of straw”.
“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much”
Despite his flaws, I will continue to honor the man and his 95 thesis every 3rd Monday of January.
IMO? Gamecock did a fine job choosing a piece which summarized a lot of differences between Catholics and Reformed/Evangelicals. It was a “Catholic Answers” question to a non Catholic Christian.
We do see this question arise so many times here on FR on the RF and answered so many times as well. It has become a game of ‘pong’ though and perhaps this installment will let all realize it won’t be resolved by playing ‘pong.’
Reformed and Evangelical Christians will continue to point to the infallible authority of Holy Scriptures by the Holy Spirit to be the metric. Catholics will continue to look to Sacred Scriptures and Tradition for their metric.
When both have two differing approaches, there will be arguments. Where we have agreement, as in Life issues, marriage, fighting liberalism and Jihad we need to keep up the good fight together as fellow Americans.
Don’t worry, we’ll be using the pool for baptisms too.
It’s not in my head. We keep Luther’s rants on the toilet paper dispenser in the bathroom.
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.