Adam and Eve became corrupt even though they talked with God and lived in Eden. Why would you expect all men in the Church to be different even though Christ founded it?

Wow...you're right. Or any of us, for that matter.

I'd never thought about the first parents from that point of view before, but you're right.

And thanks for the reminder. Tell you what, living aware is way harder than it looks, and I still forget the consequences of that mirror sometimes.

During playground recess, when I was in elementary school, there was this kid that was always trying to change the rules before, or even during the games. Your replies remind me of him, especially with this comment you made:

**There was no missing either then or now. I choose what I will and will not answer.**

But you expect all of your questions answered.
O consistency, thou art a jewel!

Remember, I didn’t ask for a word limit on your answer. So, in answering a yes or no type of question, you were not being expected to hold to just yes or no. To this question: “In the scriptures, you will not find Jesus Christ, or the apostles ever use the phrase,”God the Son”. Is that truth?”, you could have honestly answered like this:

“If one chooses to hold to their faith by only the scriptures, then that would be truth.”

If you wanted drift off into why you hold your beliefs, that’s your right of freedom of speech.

But when people don’t answer to YOUR liking (or answers in a style like yours)......( I can still hear the voice of that kid....)

So much to gladly respond to, but just exhausted.

Later, king air.

I'm not entirely one of them in every respect, but if you want to discuss some single point of what came to be known as Calvinism, you'll need do better than this;

God’s foreknowledge does not proscribe free will.

Did I say it did? No, I did not (and neither do Calvinists, as far as I can tell) but instead I provided acknowledgment there be degree of freedom of choice. That (perceived freedom) does have it's limits; the natural man, the flesh, the unregenerate spirit & mind not being able to choose God, not able to please God. No freedom there, not when in bondage to sin.

Christ surrendered his own human will. It was quite difficult, even for him --when in form of a man, and was facing excruciating death that He could have avoided had he so chosen, calling in angels to do battle. That battle would have been intense -- The End -- no flesh surviving I do assume.

Mark 14

35 He went a little farther, and fell on the ground, and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will.”

Key ingredient===love. Jesus could have called down legions of angels, and if the world of living men not destroyed (I can't see how that could have been avoided, having "felt" the Lord's anger before) set himself up as King of Israel, and King of the world to then convert the world through "infallible teachings". But given human nature, I'm going to venture that would not have worked out lest God abandon Holy Purpose he held in his own heart from the beginnings, and convert by force of power (His own) refashioning mankind into automatons who would do as He desired. The rod of iron may yet be coming to this world, but until then iron rods (the Ruling Over kind, not the shepherding kind, those have some place) should be knocked from hands of men daring to call themselves Alter Christus while they go about the business of tending flocks as the hirelings they are (not true heir, there being only One of those, but mere place-holders at best, as it were).

Speaking of free will (what measure of that may truly exist);
What role does free will play in Love (the real kind)? It can, I think be a part. Which is what makes it love?

The flesh is not subject to the will of God neither can it be. That's a re-wording of Romans 8:7, but I think the way I put it does not alter intended meaning. What else I'm doing with it now could be another story, of course, but that's the way it always is with any treatment and exegesis.

Including when;
men proclaiming themselves sole heirs to all authority given by God unto men demand obeisance to themselves in all doctrines, which doctrines upon examination can be determined not all coming from God, and among those which do appear from God somewhat altered to suit men's own preferences and decisions made among themselves...and these same claimants continuing on demanding complete surrender to inventions and novelties too, the customs built not upon the Word but upon yet other customs (which once were regarding how to organize & manage and control people more than purely Gospel message) --- who are they fooling? Not this little black duck.

Considerations and discussion of "free will" in regards to predestination does need acknowledge God's own role in arranging predestination for those whom He would call, and for those whom He would use. The Lord used Pharaoh and Nebuchanezzar too, perhaps we all should bear in mind.

As for our salvation, we do not chose Him. He chooses us. Without His stirring within us, we would (undoubtedly will) wander always away.

Or else the apostle Paul was in error, as I understand him.

It is not our own natural wills that do the work of God. It can only be what He has quickened of what was there (and had died) to be born again from above. A regenerated "free will"? One that has been truly washed. Yet what of the portions of ourselves within ourselves that did not come from above and are not regenerated, the "free will" still there is in part, illusion. The apostle Paul wrote towards that, I do believe; Romans 7

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. ...

... ... ...
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Catching sight of ourselves in mirrors as we pass by those --- how much true regeneration can we see? If seeing any truly and lingering too long, then what? Narcissism. Egotism. Further demands upon others they obey us. The appetite for it become insatiable, the Lord abandoned while the runners trot off with the message they insist only they can deliver.

Once we get through our thick heads that is Him within that does anything that is "good" it changes everything. It can bring not a little fear of the Lord too (once one encounters Him) yet great comfort, also. Abiding in that, that can be a work of faith.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
To place our faith on the Christ. Not elsewhere. Including not upon a priesthood whom fancy themselves alter-Christus. They may err, they may fail. God does neither. He may well indeed work through them, yet that can be in spite of them, for He does fulfill His promises. Those whom diligently seek Him will be supplied, from Him, reward. (Hebrews 11:5-7

How much free will enters into 'doing good works' can be difficult to pin down precisely, because it is Himself within us that is what responds. To love others. Is that free will? It seems not always..though too can be affected by what thoughts and desires (for either good or for ill) we entertain within.

A preacher I once heard put it this way; we are not responsible for the thoughts that pass through our minds, but we can be responsible for how long they stay there. Possibly; free will you are seeking establish existence of resides there.

Romans 8

26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

He will not abandon us. He does not forget. Including not forget promises He has made. It is best to not tempt Him in that, however, and-- of course. God does have and experience within Himself what could for us correlate to emotion. His are powerful. Frighteningly powerful, although this does not mean that what evils there are in the world due to sins committed by sinful men, are because God is angry, and whoever is suffering being sinned against deserved to suffer -- yet He can use all of that too, for His Holy purposes. Job's friends were a bit slow on the uptake as for that last point. They seemed to think they knew everything else though...

The fallen angels fell of their own free will, and of pride.

They did not fall of their own free will. They were cast out. How much free will there was in angels vaunting themselves to be as good as the Most High (or else agreeing with the wrong angel that he was as high) is best known from the result rather than process.

God’s foreknowledge did not detract from their freely made choice.

Angels. Merely created ah.. beings? Perhaps they are not "beings" in sense of God Himself being the I Am whom Moses encountered when tending Jethro's flock.

What angels truly are I would not be able to say even if I had seen one with my own eyes knowing it was angelic being. In light of what was said to Moses, and speaking of the will of angels --- they would have to been made in likeness and image of God for ourselves to gain understanding comparing ourselves, and our will (what we humans have of that) to what may appear the will of these angelic beings who are mysterious.

Shaky ground. No literal ground (earth) at all -- there. Strictly ethereal. Until they fell. Because they sinned. There is something there for us warning, but care should be taken. Men were not made in the image of angels, I'm fairly sure. If you have other notions about what angels are, then you may tell us, or not.

Meanwhile, the comparison can go only so far, and not quite far enough to reach into and obliterate what Calvin was talking about when that man wrote of predestination. Calvin it seems can be more misunderstood than Paul. What came along a bit afterwords can be yet again more difficult yet to sift through, though other than span of materials, perhaps not as difficult (or too much more difficult) as attempting finding condensed salvific regulatory instruction from modern catechism of the RCC lacking canon lawyer tour guide(s).

Calvin was not on one-to-one par with the apostle Paul, of course, and should not be looked upon in that way, or held to comparison -- and when failing that -- be entirely shunted aside, for men like Calvin (and Luther, and many others) were merely downstream from what had come from the Lord through prophets and true apostles preceding + inputs from early church notables who took the trouble to write their thoughts down, preserving them in that manner. At least when what is presented from among those early era's notables is not pretender-fake letter, or else highly edited rewrite. That kind of "action" though, can reveal changes, and shifting focus of emphasis among publications of copies circulated designed to sway and persuade.

Yet neither are most any others on par with Paul the apostle (and other Scripture) including past era's 'Church Council' working in committee. They too produce 'downstream' works which are not equal to Scripture, but are more about, and concerning what men think they understand what Scripture (and traditions among men within the Church) reveals.

Early centuries Council statements underlying principles quite noticeably & prominently figure within most any 'other than [Roman] Catholic' Christian theological systematic. When they don't, and in further ponderings go too far in some direction or another, nobody much (except Mormons and weirdo Scientologists perhaps -- if those last count at all) set themselves up as infallible authority threatening loss of salvation when those novelties such as counter-Scriptural;

claims of perennial infallibility among theological administration of the 'Church'

along with

notions that their own assembled proclamations are on par with Scripture -- if not superior over and Above Scripture in regulatory fashion

are not accepted.

Our founder was Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. Your ultimate founder was a brilliant, but possibly mentally ill, rebel monk named Martin Luther. That will never change.

That Luther is the father of Protestantism and Jesus Christ is the father of Roman Catholicism is only true in the sense that that those who trace their heritage back to these source hold, to varying degrees, some things in conformity with what their claimed founders taught.

Luther was still somewhat Catholic, and Protestantism did not even hold to his (non-binding) canon of Scripture, and overall moved away, if not totally, from the unscriptural teachings of Rome that Luther yet held to.

Meanwhile, although SS is indeed Scriptural, rightly and reasonably understood, that, without excluding other helps, including natural revelation and the Spirit's illumination and guidance (at the least during the offering), it alone is the wholly inspired/infallible standard for faith and obedience, to which the authority of oral preaching was and is subject to testing by.

Reformers often invoked ECFs for support for instance, but as subject to Scripture as supreme, versus the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. While from the beginning God always provided what was sufficient for what He required of them, He did progressively added more conflative and complementary revelation. But as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

While SS can enjoin obedience to oral preaching under the premise that it is Scriptural, as the apostle's was substantiated by and found to be by readers of it, they do not presume do speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation, which even Rome does not presume to claim.

And that Scripture is sufficient in its formal and material senses, both formally providing the clearly revelation of the gospel message and revelation needed for growth in grace, as well as materially providing for the church, and its teaching office, and synods, etc.. As well as for believers discerning both men and writings of God as being so, and thus for the establishment of a canon of Scripture.

Sola fide is also Scriptural, in that is it faith that is counted/imputed for righteousness, justifying the unGodly (Rm. 4:4,5) and is what purifies the heart (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) resulting in one being positionally sweated with Christ, (Eph. 2:6) but which must be a effectual living faith to be salvific, with works continually justifying one as being a believer, (Heb. 6:9; Ja, 2:14-26) and to such is promised salvation (Mk. 16:16; Rm. 10:9-13) and rewards for faith/obedience, (Mt. 25:31-40; ; Heb. 10:35) though man can take no credit for them, as both enablement and motivation is of God. (1Chrn. 29:14)

Thus while forgiveness is promised (thru Peter) to whosoever believes and regeneration realized thereby, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) it is also promised to those who would repent/believe and be baptized, (Acts 2;38) for the former begat the latter, like as forgiveness and healing. (Mk. 2)

Other distinctives that Scripture teaches include baptism requiring wholehearted repentant faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)

and with believers going to be with the Lord after death or His return, versus RC Purgatory, with the only transformative change after this life being the resurrection, and the suffering being that of the judgment seat of Christ.

And of prayer to Heaven only being to God.

NT pastors being normally married,

and part of the general priesthood of all believers, and not a separate sacerdotal class with the same distinctive title as OT priests,

and with believers being able to come together to eat the Lord's supper without this distinctive sacerdotal priesthood, and without it being the enthroned central priestly ritual around which all else revolved in the life of the NT church.

More can be added, as well as deviations (women pastors, etc.) but such Scriptural distinctives attests to the Lord Jesus being the Father of such faith, while as for Roman Catholicism an honest examination of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) reveals that the Catholic distinctives as simply manifestly not seen, and that she stands in substantial contrast to it.

Meaning that (pardon some redundancy) the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 4:4; 19:4-5; 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.) in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation of the body “unto whom were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) but who wrongly supposed lineage made them correct, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:33) and thus the authenticity of Truth claims and oral preaching of the word must be subject to the only wholly God-inspired substantive body of Truth, the Scriptures. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28)

In the light of which, what the NT church in Scripture (as seen in Acts onward, which shows how the NT church understood the gospels) did NOT profess/teach practice were such things as:

• Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers, with none being addressed to anyone else but God, who alone is shown able to hear all such from Heaven. Only pagans prayed to invisible heavenly beings than God, as the Spirit is faithful to record.

• Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods. Only pagans burned incense unto the queen of heaven: Jeremiah 44:16-17), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven if they died at the time of the baptism, but which thus means that the same (due to the outworking of their remaining sinful nature) usually have to later endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven.

• Nor were novenas made to obtain indulgences to escape RC purgatory, as instead by effectual faith true believers are already accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)

And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture.

• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme central practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved. For instead it is only manifestly described in one epistle (besides "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) and in which the Catholic Eucharist is not evident, but the church is the focus as the "one bread" and the body of Christ, purchased with the sinless shed blood of Christ, whose death, and the love behind it, the church is supposed to declare by sharing food in that communal meal. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) More , by God's grace.

• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests" whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin. Neither presbuteros or episkopos are even called “hiereus," the distinctive word translated "priest," which conflation is the result of ecclesiastical evolution, and NT pastors are nowhere even described as officiating at the Lord's supper and dispensing the elements, much less offering them as a sacrifice for sins.

• Nor is this Catholic function taught as being a primary or unique function of the clergy, who instead are exhorted to preach the word, (2 Timothy 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) with the word of God, which is what is called spiritual "milk" and "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:13; 1 Peter 2:2) by which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) and then by which they are "nourished" (1Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)

• That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes.

• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy. Instead both apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5) and NT clergy were normatively married with children, which evidenced his qualifications for the pastorate, (1 Timothy 3;1-7) and with celibacy being a gift that not all have, ((1 Corinthians 7:7) and it is only wrongly presumed that all or almost all clergy do.

• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.

• Choosing more apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (in order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, thus no politics. (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)

• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

More to see by God's grace.

. Was Luther perfect? No.

But we have been told he thought he was omniscient! Must have been that binding canon.

Is the RCC with its practices of idolatry and a priesthood not found in the NT perfect? No.

You should know by now that Scripture says whatever they need it to. It is compelled as an abused servant to support Rome.

Well, if praying to is the same as worshiping, then I'm guilty. I've said the standard issue prayers to both Mother Mary and to St. Michael, the archangel.

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture , yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

Caths should only do (and I should do more of) what Mary and every believer in Scripture did in praying to Heaven, which was to pray directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.

Instead, Caths basically say,

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

When it is included in proper context, we see that works are not antithetical to faith, but rather, the necessary “outworking” of it. ..The whole passage is more in accord with Catholic both-and thinking than with the Protestant sola perspective.

Really? You mean you believe the Cath propaganda that Reformers did not teach that the kind of faith that justifies must be the Biblical kind which effects obedience (and repentance when convicted of not doing so)?

And that Caths (whom Rome treats as members in life and in death) do not overall testify to far less commitment than evangelicals ?

In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,

a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]

All believers are like poor Lazarus; and every believer is a true Lazarus, for he is of the same faith, mind and will, as Lazarus. And whoever will not be a Lazarus, will surely have his portion with the rich glutton in the flames of hell. For we all must like Lazarus trust in God, surrender ourselves to him to work in us according to his own good pleasure, and be ready to serve all men.. And although we all do not suffer from such sores and poverty, yet the same mind and will must be in us, that were in Lazarus, cheerfully to bear such things, wherever God wills it.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:25]

“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

“For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present. Therefore man knows by the fruits what kind of a tree it is, and it is proved by love and deed whether Christ is in him and he believes in Christ...” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]

“For if your heart is in the state of faith that you know your God has revealed himself to you to be so good and merciful, without thy merit, and purely gratuitously, while you were still his enemy and a child of eternal wrath; if you believe this, you cannot refrain from showing yourself so to your neighbor; and do all out of love to God and for the welfare of your neighbor. Therefore, see to it that you make no distinction between friend and foe, the worthy and the unworthy; for you see that all who were here mentioned, have merited from us something different than that we should love and do them good. And the Lord also teaches this, when in Luke 6:35 he says: "But love your enemies, and do good unto them, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil." [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:101]

...if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead......Peter says the grace and gifts of God are not one but manifold, and each is to tend to his own, develop the same and through them be of service to others.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]

In addition, upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law, Luther responded,

And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Martin Luther, ["A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way", http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html]

The corruption of Catholicism goes WAY back into it's almost 2,000 year old history.

Rome even saw to it that it was SHOWN in the book it assembled!

Those seven churches in Asia (that were so messed up in John's Revelation) were NOT Prot ones!!!

Why would you expect all men in the Church to be different even though Christ founded it?

And those fallible men created an INfallible Church.

Right...

Salvation by faith alone precludes ANY boasting on the part of any man.

Folks can SEE lots of boasting in this thread.

I wonder what a rational person could conclude from that?

And isn’t heresy (like Protestantism) a corruption in itself, a corruption of truth?

Mary (called "Maryam" in Arabic) has an entire chapter in the Quran named for her — the only chapter in the Quran named for a female figure.

In fact, Mary is the only woman to be mentioned by name in the entire Quran.

As noted in the new Study Quran, "other female figures are identified only by their relation to others, such as the wife of Adam and the mother of Moses, or by their title, such as the Queen of Sheba.

Mary is mentioned more times in the Quran than in the entire New Testament.

And remember Mary in the Book, when she withdrew from her family to an eastern place. And she veiled herself from them. Then We [God] sent unto her Our Spirit [the angel Gabriel], and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said, "I seek refuge from thee in the Compassionate [i.e., God], if you are reverent!" He said, "I am but a messenger of thy Lord, to bestow upon thee a pure boy."

She said, "How shall I have a boy when no man has touched me, nor have I been unchaste?" He said, "Thus shall it be. Thy Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me.’" And [it is thus] that We might make him a sign unto mankind, and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter decreed.

So she conceived him and withdrew with him to a place far off. And the pangs of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date palm. She said, "Would that I had died before this and was a thing forgotten, utterly forgotten!" So he called out to her from below her, "Grieve not! Thy Lord has placed a rivulet beneath thee. And shake toward thyself the trunk of the date palm; fresh, ripe dates shall fall upon thee. So eat and drink and cool thine eye. And if thou seest any human being, say, ‘Verily I have vowed a fast unto the Compassionate, so I shall not speak this day to any man.’"

Then she came with him [the infant Jesus] unto her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary! Thou hast brought an amazing thing! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not an evil man, nor was thy mother unchaste." Then she pointed to him [Jesus]. They said, "How shall we speak to one who is yet a child in the cradle?"

He [Jesus] said, "Truly I am a servant of God. He has given me the Book and made me a prophet. He has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I live, and [has made me] dutiful toward my mother. And He has not made me domineering, wretched. Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I am raised alive!"

Luther became a heretic and he died as a heretic.

Luther was BAPTIZED a Catholic; and by GOD!; he REMAINED a Catholic!!

Ymmv, but definitely be careful with what you say and think about Jesus' Mom.

No problem!

Now Rome's created being it CALLS Mary?

That's a whole new ballgame!

It’s amazing that you continue to defend that and yourself.

There’s nothing to refute, only something to condemn and you didn’t condemn one iota of it.

You merely continue to defend it.

Interesting, too, that I RARELY see any other Catholics ever condemn. Most of them slip immediately into the *everyone is a sinner* mode and defend or excuse the same kind of behavior they condemn in any non-Catholics or anyone who isn’t as perfect as Jesus Himself.

As I said and will continue to say, that is another example of how your hypocrisy.

O...K...

Adam and Eve were created in the image and likeness of God - and they still sinned and brought corruption to all of us forever in this world.

WHAT!!??!!??

Even Rome's created MARY???

Fire up the oil vat!

Thanks for admitting I never said “worse” and that it was something you made up out of thin air.

The popes alive during Luther’s adult life were Alexander VI and Leo X and if you read the history of those men, you’ll find a level of debauchery and hedonism that surpasses even some o f the most vile stuff we hear coming out of the homosexual movement.

And yet, Luther is condemned for reacting against the immorality and corruption of the Catholic church.

And look now most of those who call themselves faithful Catholics respond to Francis today.

They are JUST THE SAME AS LUTHER, and won’t even see it, and Francis doesn’t seem to have sunk to the depths that Alexander VI did.

“But you expect all of your questions answered.”

I only said so after you insisted I answer all of yours - even though I had answered some of yours. You got what you gave. You’re the high and mighty one who insisted on penalty questions, remember? And now you’re upset that “you expect all of your questions answered”? You got what you gave.