Was Martin Luther Wrong?

antithesis.com ^ | 10/31/01 | R. C. Sproul

[Zipporah]

Funny.. Jesus said it was a rememberance..are you saying Jesus' words are not to be believed?

[zadok]

Here is a portion of the transcript from the King Interview..

KING: What do you think of the other [churches] ... like Mormonism? Catholicism? Other faiths within the Christian concept?

GRAHAM: Oh, I think I have a wonderful fellowship with all of them. For example ...

KING: You’re comfortable with Salt Lake City. You’re comfortable with the Vatican?

GRAHAM: I am very comfortable with the Vatican. I have been to see the Pope several times. In fact, the night -- the day that he was inaugurated, made Pope, I was preaching in his cathedral in Krakow. I was his guest ... [and] when he was over here ... in Columbia, South Carolina ... he invited me on the platform to speak with him. I would give one talk, and he would give the other ... but I was two-thirds of the way to China...

KING: You like this Pope?

GRAHAM: I like him very much. ... He and I agree on almost everything.

[PsyOps]

Interesting....

Where in the Bible does it say we should rely on the Bible alone?

Read 1 Timothy 3:15.

It's not just the Bible, but the Church.

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Some translations say "pillar and bullwork of the truth".

If your relying soley on the Bible then you are not getting the "Full Gospel". Your getting a lot of it, but not the whole deal.

I also find it very interesting that most protestants speak of being guided by the Holy Spirit, yet you can go to many of the 25,000 !!!!! different protestant churches and they all seem to have their own little twist to the truth. Sounds like the Holy Spirit must be really confused.

No...I'll stick with the Catholic Church. I'm a convert to the RCC and was very impressed when a anti-catholic writer went to the Vatican to research all the "corrupt" popes and converted to Catholicism. He found that even with the most corrupt popes, the one thing they never tried to do was change the Church's teachings on Faith and Morals. He was convicted that the words of Jesus regarding protecting the church were indeed true and the only church that can claim to be the one true church is the Catholic Church.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Have there been bad popes? You bet. Did they do things that were terrible? They sure did. But they never taught against the Gospel.

Bill Clinton for the past 8 years made a mockery of the constitution, so did we throw it out? Did half the country run off and start a new America? No, we voted the bum out.

There were many saints in the catholic church who saw the corruption, they also wanted reform, but they worked within the church, they didnt run off and start another.

"Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you."

Jesus didnt say "go off and start your own church."

[Cap'n Crunch]

Isnt this scriptural:

"Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

[Zipporah]

Yes..that is scriptural.. but Jesus/God does not contradict Himself. He said do this in rememberance of me. What He is saying here is not in the physical but in a spiritual sense.

[Charles Henrickson]

Luther believed in free will.

No, actually, that is not so. Luther did not--and the Lutheran Church does not--believe in free will. The will of unregenerate man is not "free" in things toward God. Indeed, it is corrupted, dead, and in bondage to sin and Satan. One of Luther's most important theological works--and he himself regarded it as such--was The Bondage of the Will (De Servo Arbitrio), in which he makes that point at great length (over against Erasmus).

For more on this biblical teaching, see:

The Lutheran understanding of what Scripture teaches regarding the freedom of the will

Or go to:
Epitome of the Formula of Concord
and click, "Free Will" (for the shorter version of that confessional article).

Or go to:
Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord
and click, "Free Will" (for the longer version of that confessional article).

[RnMomof7]

"Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Cap..He was alive when he said that.

Do you also believe we will eat the actual flesh of kings?

Revelation 19:17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

19:18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.

[Jolly Rodgers]

Bill Clinton for the past 8 years made a mockery of the constitution, so did we throw it out? Did half the country run off and start a new America? No, we voted the bum out.

Actually, we didn't. He was re-elected for a second term and couldn't run for a third because the Presidency is term limited.

[PsyOps]

John 6. verse 55. "my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" - This is not the language of symbolism. There are examples where Christ spoke about bread using symbolism (Jn 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12). The disciples interpreted him to mean real food. Note how Jesus shows them in plain language that He is only speaking figuratively. Contrast that with John 6. The disciples that were His audience had just the day before witnessed the miracle of the loaves. After Jesus spoke of his Body and Blood being real food, many of the disciples said this was a difficult teaching and left. Jesus did not correct a erroneous understanding as he did in Jn 4 and Mt 16. Instead he turned to the Apostles and asked if they were going to leave also?

The acutal institution of the Eucharist occurs during the last supper.

If Christ can die on the cross and then be raised from the dead, is it not possible he could provide his Body and Blood under the appearances of bread and wine?

[Cap'n Crunch]

If it was only a remembrance, why did his disciples walk away from Him and no longer follow Him?

"This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?" From this time on, many of His disciples broke away and would not remain in His company any longer.

"At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying "How can he give us his flesh to eat?"

Are you absolutely sure that it is only a rememberance? If you read these words it sure seems that Jesus' disciples thought that He really wanted them to eat His flesh.

When you read what the fathers of the Church wrote, the direct disciples and followers of the Apostles themselves, they also believed that Jesus' flesh was 'food indeed' and His Blood 'real drink.'

[Cap'n Crunch]

Your right, but we did vote out his buddy (unless you believe NBC of late, and other SoreLosermans ;0)

[Federalist#34]

Analog Reigns is correct that the Baptists began AFTER Luther, but he seems to see the Anabaptists as the ancestor to modern-day Baptists, and that's not really correct either. Mennonites and Apostolic Churches would correctly trace their lineage to Swiss Anabaptists from the 1500s, whom, as he rightly states, made up the left wing of the reformation. While Englishman John Smyth, circa 1607, may indeed have gleaned the idea of believer's baptism from the continental Anabaptists, he was a product of the English Reformation, as were a number of Baptist churches that began popping up across England in the early 17th century. A number of these churches sent representatives to draft the 1644 London Confession, which later was slightly revised to make the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Look at these confessions and you will see a heavily Reformed emphasis on soteriology, eschatology and most other things. The only real "distinctive" for Baptist churches when they began was, in fact, believers baptism - the idea that the church consists entirely of believers. While an alternate strain of English Baptists later adopted more of a free-will approach, a la the Methodists, it was in North America in the 19th century that the majority of Baptist churches began to take on much of their stereotypical identify from today, including a heavily Finneyist approach to evangelism and soteriology. Many were also consumed by the legacy of fundamentalism in the 20th century. Happily, there has been a rediscovery of Puritan and Reformed writing among many Baptists, and the number of churches taking a Reformed theology with a baptistic view of the church (a la Spurgeon), is growing through groups like the Founders Conference www.founders.org

[Jolly Rodgers]

Your right, but we did vote out his buddy (unless you believe NBC of late, and other SoreLosermans ;0)

I'll grant that Gore's loss (yes he really lost) was in large part a rejection of Clintonism.