Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Martin Luther Wrong?
antithesis.com ^ | 10/31/01 | R. C. Sproul

Posted on 10/31/2001 8:11:42 AM PST by AnalogReigns

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-277 next last
To: winstonchurchill
Now there's an oxymoron. "Evangelical" means 'carrying the good news to those in need.' as in "evangelism". Where's the "good news" in "so sorry, I'm telling you this story, but you're not included. [It's only us.] Have a happy eternity in Hell."

I don't know where you get off with your insults. I'm not insulting those who are not Calvinist. The original Reformers, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Cranmer, etc. were all, without exception, in agreement of what the Scriptures clearly teach about predestination. The word "Evangelical" itself was first used by followers of Luther--a committed predestinarian.

The first Protestant missionaries--going out when they were at clear risk of being literally burned--were all followers of John Calvin. Sharing the good news of Jesus has always been top priority for Calvinists.

As a proportion of their denominations, there are probably more evangelical Presbyterian (Calvinist) missionaries today than any other denomination. Wycliff Bible Translators, the largest independent missionary organization in the world, is filled with evangelical Calvinists.

Yes, I believe the tenets of Calvinism to be true, and found clearly in the Bible--but I'm not insisting that you believe them to be saved, nor am I deriding your denomination, whatever it may be--as you have derided mine.

Your insults don't reflect the love of Christ which you claim to defend by putting down those who honestly understand the Bible differently than you.

201 posted on 10/31/2001 7:35:34 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: 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?

He was standing there in their midst..He was alive ,not dead when the Passover meal was celebrated.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Jesus spoke to his disciples in symbols they understood...the bread....the Manna.....the blood...the sacrifices offered in the temple........The Shepherd an "unclean" individual in Jewish Law..also used as an OT example of the corrupt teachers and priests....the vine,the symbol of Israel,found over the door of the temple and on the coins

Eat my body.The Manna was a symbol of Me,He was saying..I sustained them in their wandering,I will give you eternal life He was the Blood about to be poured out as the sacrifice for their sins...He was the Blood of the Lamb on the altar......He called Himself living waters....like the water that flowed from the rock in the desert that was Christ..

He was showing Himself to a blind people . He was the Messiah written about in their sacred writings

We are to consume him.....we are to be filled with Him..not in a superstitious ritual,but in a daily communion with Him....."eat the scroll" (the word) take it into you "My word is life"

202 posted on 10/31/2001 7:35:52 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: cdwright
Checks and balances, sure, I just think Martin Luther et al should have trusted the Holy Spirit to carry out those checks and balances.
203 posted on 10/31/2001 7:36:15 PM PST by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
I clearly said of course non-Calvinists can be saved. Ignorance won't keep you from Christ.

However, once there, we will know the truth about all kinds of things we were misled about before--and I firmly believe that what scripture teaches is basically what Calvin taught.

To say there are no non-Calvinists in heaven is just saying I believe it is true.

You of course would say there are no Calvinists in heaven, would you not???

204 posted on 10/31/2001 7:42:06 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: AlGone2001
I was taken aback by that quote myself. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Graham. The quote was within the text of the article I quoted from antithesis.com.

I found the full quote on the Internet, from an interview Rev. Grahm did with McCall's magazine in 1978:

I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders--people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition--has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction. I've found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics . . . We only differ on some matters of later church tradition.
-Billy Graham

205 posted on 10/31/2001 7:58:03 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
What do you make of this quote mom?

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ."

"I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"-St. Pauls 1st letter to the Corinthians

Seems St. Paul is saying that the Jews ate and drank a supernatural food, and that food was Christ. It wasnt 'the word' it was a food, a food from heaven, a supernatural food.

(Happy All Saints day!)

206 posted on 10/31/2001 8:04:54 PM PST by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Cap'n Crunch
Good night all, I have to attend the Holy Sacrifice tomorrow/today. Holy Day of obligation.

Peace be with you.

207 posted on 10/31/2001 8:10:14 PM PST by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Cap'n Crunch
"At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying "How can he give us his flesh to eat?"

This quote shows that the Jews had NO clue as to what Jesus was trying to say.. what He was advocating
IF it were not spiritual but physical would be against scripture.. do you not recall what scripture says about the drinking of blood?
God never changes nor does He contradict His own word.

208 posted on 10/31/2001 8:13:08 PM PST by Zipporah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Not wrong -- just a potty mouth.

Or maybe just constipated.

209 posted on 10/31/2001 8:34:03 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tares
Guess what? Even after you die and are accepted in heaven YOU can still LOSE your salvation.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him sould not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

If you are right, then John 3:16 is a lie.


Well, I am right. You have just proved it by posting the most memorized verse in the Bible, John 3:16. The key word that you are conveniently ignoring in that verse is the word should . The phrase "should not perish" is not the same as the phrase "will not perish."

God is clearly letting all people here know that just believing in Jesus once does not guarantee salvation.

Thank you for proving my point.

I am right, and of course John 3:16 is, was, and will always be true.

210 posted on 10/31/2001 9:06:07 PM PST by RickyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: garybob
Don't the Baptist claim the "once saved, always saved" garbage?

No...it's the Bible that sets that truth out. Baptists are merely repeating what the Word of God says.


No where in the Bible does it say "once saved always saved." I'm sure Charles Stanley says this, but the Bible doesn't.

In fact it says exactly the opposite.

Luke 8:10-15
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

211 posted on 10/31/2001 9:19:02 PM PST by RickyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Blly Graham is a first-rate ecumenizer. He has openly proselytized for Rome for decades. I'm astonished that Graham's real views are so little-known. This is actually a very minor remark out of the vast asmount of strange and unscriptural teachings of Graham. He is not what most people believe him to be.

I can't really understand why he's still held in such regard by so many. Especially by Baptists. He's the most apostate Baptist I know of. Well, maybe tied with Clinton...
212 posted on 11/01/2001 4:16:53 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Zipporah
Have you read other sections of the Bible? AFter all, I believe it is 1 Corinthians which says it is more than a rememberance. Also, it makes sense that Jesus would say it was a rememberance to his disciples. That does not mean it is not more......AND IT CLEARLY IS.
213 posted on 11/01/2001 4:17:45 AM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Arminians never grasp this one thing: if their views are correct in that God leaves it up to us as to who would be saved, then it would follow that obviously man is not dead in his sin after the Fall. After all, when does a dead man have the ability to make a conscious choice? Furthermore, does not Scripture say that the Gospel is not able to be understood by unbelievers since they do not have the Spirit, WHICH BRINGS THEM THAT UNDERSTANDING? Calvinism is correct because it acknowledges that GOD has chosen to start the process and change the hearts of the predestined ones. This is in line with Scripture. Why did he do it....I don't know. But, he is God adn I won't criticize.
214 posted on 11/01/2001 4:19:47 AM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
APPROPRIATE?

YUP.

215 posted on 11/01/2001 4:25:02 AM PST by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; RnMomof7; winstonchurchill
Arminians never grasp this one thing: if their views are correct in that God leaves it up to us as to who would be saved, then it would follow that obviously man is not dead in his sin after the Fall.

Good point. This article downplays the issue of predestinaton in the Reformation. However, Rome's rejection of sola fide is intertwined with predestination. These doctrines all interlock and define the differences between the classic Arminians and Calvinists and the church of Rome. Luther was well-known for his predestinarian views which he came by honestly from Augustine. Luther was, after all, an Augustinian monk.

An interesting side note here for the various Wesleyans (Methodists, Nazarenes, etc.) is that despite his rather vehement rejection of Calvinist teaching, Wesley upheld the central tenet of the Reformation: justification by faith. In this sense, orthodox Wesleyans are not Arminian, a distinctive that should be noted. In this sense and on this central issue, Wesley did stand firmly with the great Reformers. I never realized some of these more subtle doctrinal distinctives until some vicious arguments passionate theological discussion threads here at FR.

After all these centuries, it is interesting to see how Calvinism and justification by faith alone is still the central theological dispute among Christian churches.

Some good posts here, winston. Haven't we made a Calvinist out of you yet? Heh-heh.
216 posted on 11/01/2001 5:06:49 AM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Bumping for reading; later!
217 posted on 11/01/2001 5:14:33 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RickyJ; garybob
You are misreading that verse, badly. And you must reconcile with these verses:
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, `I came down from heaven'?" "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Egads, how did I get the NIV instead of the KJ21...
218 posted on 11/01/2001 5:21:38 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

Comment #219 Removed by Moderator

To: AnalogReigns
A good place to start in understanding Luther's basic theological thinking is his Small Catechism and Large Catechism.
220 posted on 11/01/2001 6:17:23 AM PST by Charles Henrickson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson