'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

You wrote:

"Rome fundamentally misses the point of Christ's atonement in that Rome believes Christ subjectively morphs the sinner into a non-sinner through an infusion of grace."

That's utter nonsense. If you're going to attack what Catholics believe it would help if you actually knew what we believed and talked about that. Making up nonsense and saying that's what Catholics believe is not only not helpful, it is intellectually dishonest.

We do not believe the sinner becomes a non-sinner in this lifetime. We do believe the sinner is transformed through God's grace. We believe God's grace has real power. It is effective. It actually does something to the sinner.

"Thus this is what has permitted Rome to arrogantly believe it can dispense God's grace to whom it wills, and to parcel out salvation according to the dictates of men."

Again, completely false. There is no arrogance in the Church's belief as to what it is because it really is THE Church established by Christ. Men are arrogant. The Church is not. Also, no man, no matter how loved by someone in the Church can be made holy if he has no disposition for it. You are ignorantly proposing that the Church believes the sacraments will sanctify a man not based upon his own openness to God or even because of the absolutely necessity of grace given by God, but only because "Rome...wills it." This is not only NOT WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE it is an incredibly nutty idea.

"Say this prayer and receive this much grace." "Eat this wafer and ingest God Himself into your genetic code." "Do this and become God."

All incorrect. There is no quid pro quo in terms of grace. Grace is a gift. God uses the Church to give gifts of grace. They are gifts nonetheless. You really have no idea of what you're talking about do you?

"But Scripture does not tell us this."

I should hope not!!! The Church - no surprise - also doesn't teach that. You just make it up because you have no real argument. Since you're not equiped to deal with the real thing you make up a straw man and attack it.

"I direct you again to Charles Hodge's Scriptural understanding of Paul regarding justification by grace through faith alone because he so clearly details its Scriptural foundation."

No, he doesn't. I have no reason to trust Hodge's Protestant interpretation. I would clearly be better off trusting the interpretation of someone who gets it right such as Chris Van Landingham's Judgment & Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul (Nov. 2006). Van Landingham actually interprets the verses as they stand and doesn't force a Protestant interpretation out of them.

"But justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness was not a concoction of the Reformation; it was the center of Christ's ministry and the core of Paul's teaching. It was always the cornerstone of the church, regardless how far Rome strayed from the truth."

Nonsense. It was an invented concoction of the Protestant Revolutionaries. This is being increasingly admitted by Protestant scholars - although still too few have the courage to do so.

I had written: "We are saved by ONLY Christ's grace that He won for us on the cross."

You wrote:

"If Rome had really believed this, there would have been no necessity for the Reformation."

There was no necessity for the Protestant Revolution. It was a rebellion, not a reformation. More and more Protestant ministers and scholars are coming to realize these facts.

"Are we made righteous ourselves, or is it Christ's righteousness that saves us?"

We are saved by Christ and He shares Himself with us. In other words, your question is based upon a wrong premise. Like any other typical, Protestant you assume things are "either/or" rather than "both/and". The fact that Christ saved us, and that we need Him to be saved in no negates that His grace is so powerful and effective that it actually changes us and we become more like Him. God became a man so that we might become like God. He took on flesh so that we might take on holiness - a real participation in the life of God. That is not just forensic. It is REAL.

"Are men good or is Christ good?"

Christ is good, and He came for sinners, to make them into His brothers so that they might call His Father Abba, and one day here those beautiful words: 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.'

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:4-5

And even many Lutherans now believe Luther was wrong when interpreting these verses to mean anything other than a condemnation of the Mosaic Law as a means of righteousness.

As Dave Armstrong notes:

As for Paul's usage of "works of the law" in a technical sense, referring primarily to the Jews (i.e., ones who misunderstood the essence of the Law, not all), I cite The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. James Orr, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1939/1956, rep. 1974, vol. 5, "Works," p. 3105):

'Works' is used by Paul and James, in a special sense, as denoting (with Paul) those legal performances by means of which men sought to be accepted by God, in contradistinction to that faith in Christ through which the sinner is justified apart from all legal works (Rom 3:27; 4:2,6, etc.; Gal 2:16; 3:2,5,10) . . . Judgment is according to 'works' (Mt 16:27 . . . Rom 2:6, 1 Pet 1:17, etc.), the new life being therein evidenced. A contrast between 'faith' and 'good works' is never drawn in the NT.

[W.L. Walker - Congregational Minister]

The New Bible Dictionary (ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962, "Law," p. 722, written by J. Murray - Reformed), not exactly a flaming Catholic reference work, either, states with great precision:

In varying forms of expression 'law' is used in a depreciatory sense to denote the status of the person who looks to the law, and therefore to works of the law, as the way of justification and acceptance with God. The formula 'under law' has this signification (Rom 6:14-15; Gal 5:18). As indicated above, this use of the formula is not to be confused with the same when applied to the Mosaic dispensation (cf. Gal 3:23 and others cited). Interpretation of the New Testament, particularly of the Pauline epistles, has been complicated by failure to recognize the distinction. The person who is 'under law' in the sense of Rom 6:14 is in bondage to sin in its guilt, defilement, and power. But this was not the consequence of being under the Mosaic economy during the period from Moses to Christ. Nor is 'under law', in this sense, to be confused with a similar term as it applies to a believer in Christ (1 Cor 9:21). Of the same force as 'under law' in this depreciatory sense is the expression 'of law' (Rom 4:14; Gal 3:18; Phil 3:9); and the phrase 'of works of law' (Rom 3:29; Gal 2:16, 3:2,5,10) refers to the same notion. 'Apart from works of law (Rom 3:28) expresses the opposite. Several expressions are to be interpreted in terms of this concept and of the status it denotes. When Paul says, 'a righteousness without law has been manifested' (Rom 3:21), he means a righteousness apart from works of law, and therefore antithetical to works-righteousness. When he says that we have been put to death to the law and discharged from the law (Rom 7:4,6), he refers to the breaking of that bond that binds us to the law as the way of acceptance with God (cf. also Gal 2:19). Law as law, as commandment requiring obedience and pronouncing its curse upon all transgression, doers not have any potency or provision for the justification of the ungodly.

Likewise, the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (ed. Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1987, "Works," p. 1065):

. . . 'Works' can be divided into the 'works of the flesh' and 'good works' . . . 'good works' . . . can be described as acts of Christian duty and piety, as evidence of faith in Jesus Christ. Paul is sure to point out that good works are not the basis for salvation (Eph 2:8-9). To suppose otherwise is to seek God's favor on the basis of the 'works of the law' (Gal 3:10). Such legal 'performances,' in order to gain God's acceptance, are useless and, in the end, only result in the curse and condemnation of God (Gal 2:16,21; 3:10-14). In essence the 'works of the law' can be categorized with the 'works of the flesh,' in that both are performed without faith in the saving grace of God (Heb 6:1; 9:14; 'dead works') . . .

Paul would argue that indeed Christians are saved in order to perform good works (Eph 2:10; cf. Titus 2:14). The basis of good works is the grace of God (2 Cor 9:8; cf. Phil 1:6; 2 Thess 2:17) . . . For Paul, good works are works of faith (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11).

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/interpretation-exegesis-of-romans-2-4.html

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS7.HTM#FAITH%20ALONE%20(%20SOLA%20FIDE)%20AND%20IMPUTED

Again, if you're going to attack what Catholics teach and believe then at least have the common decency to attack what we actually teach and believe and not make up either. Is that too much to ask?

Dave Armstrong? LOLOL!

Let's see what Trent had to say, and then read what Scripture has to say...

COUNCIL OF TRENT
CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
(1."Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20).)
(2. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24).)
(3."Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).)
(4. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).)
(5. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).)
(6. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).)
(7. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3:5).)
CANON 12: "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed"
(1. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name," (John 1:12).)
(2. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).)
(3. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).)
(4. "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself," (Heb. 7:25-27).)
(5. "For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day," (2 Tim. 1:12).)
Canon 14: "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema."
(1. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).)
(2. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).)
Canon 23: "lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema."
(1. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," (John 3:36).)
(2. "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day," (John 6:40).)
(3. "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand," (John 10:28).)
(4. "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord," (Rom. 5:21).)
(5. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us," (1 John 2:19).)
(6. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God," (1 John 5:13).)
Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."
(1. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3:1-3).)
(2. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law," (Gal. 5:1-3).)
Canon 30: "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema."
(1. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).)
(2. "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross," (Col. 2:13-14).)
Canon 33: "If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
This council declares that if anyone disagrees with it, they are damned.

Answer to the Pre-Jamnia (1)(Oops, wrong thread) heh heh heh, to wit:
1) Do you or do you not believe that at a certain and particular point in longitude where the priest raises the wafer it alchemically morphs into the actual body of Jesus Christ? Below that point, it remains flour. Above that point, it is materialistically God Himself.

"longitude"? Whatever happens happens at any longitude. Sorry. I'm going to need help with that question as regard longitude.

And, seriously, ditto with "alchemically", do you mean the same thing as "chemically"? If so, No I don't believe it, except as provided in my answer to the post-Jamnia question.

AND, also no "materialistic" or material change happens, where those words also have to do with what the Host would look like if you swiped one and subjected it to chemical analysis (something I would NOT recommend doing.)

Now this comment may seem like a quibble but it's really an effort to get at "substance". It's not "substantially" flour BEFORE the elevation (or at whatever other point of the Mass one might say the "Change" takes place I. (There's been some conversation about that -- like around the Council of Constance, I believe.)

The "substance" of an anchor is not lead. It's just that lead and iron are good and useful constituents of things that do anchoring. And we specify wheaten wafers or loaves for the Mass, but the "substance" of a loaf is not what it is made of -- As C.S. Lewis saith in "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" when they meet a retired star. Eustace says, I don't understand. A star is a ball of burning gas." And the star says, "Even in your world that is not what a star IS but what it is made of."

I like to use "wedding rings" to talk about "Substance". What the ring on my finger is made of is gold. And indeed it is the same gold of which my wife's mother's paternal grandmother's ring was made! (Is that cool or what?) But what it IS, well that's something different, and anything durable would be as good a wedding ring, and some stuff that was durable and lovely would be an even better thing from which to make a wedding ring.

The gold in my ring is worth, so much. I have no clue. The wedding ring, though, is beyond price. The difference is not just a matter of sentiment, or even of the labor which hammered the old gold into a new ring which would fit me (and stay on). It IS a wedding ring, made of gold, looking worn and scratched and slightly rosy in color. And it would be a wedding ring if it were made of titanium or platinum and be all shiny or entirely matte. That's about substance, but I'm a better cop than an a philosopher. (Or that's what I tell philosophers. I tell cops the opposite.)

It is the substance of the bread and wine which is changed (we maintain), not the constituents or materials. Any visible change is a miracle granted for the kinds of reasons for which God does miracles

I'm not arguing here, I'm trying to clarify what it is we maintain.

You posted the following:

"I understand the Reformation and Luther quite well Vladimir."

No, actually you don't. Let me demonstrate:

You wrote: "When studying Paul's letters, between 1512 and 1520, he became keenly aware through Scripture of what the doctrine of Justification was."

Incorrect. In 1511 or 1512 he had his famous "Tower Experience". Luther suffered from serious stomach and bowel problems. He often spent hours on the toilet. He would take his personal vulgate with him to read. (This was clearly before he invented the myth of never having yet seen a complete Bible). He read Romans and Galatians and saw it in a new way. He came to believe justification was by grace alone (as Catholic too believed) but only through faith alone (which Catholic never had believed). This suited Luther's dark mind which was never at ease and endlessly worried about salvation.

"Somewhere before 1517's thesis, Johann Tetzel arrived under the papal flag preaching about the sale of indulgences."

Incorrect. Tetzel never preached the sale of indulgences since there was no such thing. It was simply called the "preaching of indulgences." Indulgences were NEVER to be sold and were worthless if sold.

"He would say "Don't you hear the voices of your dead parents and other relatives crying out, "Have mercy on us, for we suffer great punishment and pain. From this, you could release us with a few alms . . . We have created you, fed you, cared for you and left you our temporal goods. Why do you treat us so cruelly and leave us to suffer in the flames, when it takes only a little to save us? [ Die Reformation in Augenzeugen Berichten, edited by Helmar Junghaus (Dusseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag, 1967), 44.]"

Interesting. Now tell me, did you do the translation there? It is not typical for German books printed in the late 1960's to be published in Germany in English. That's why I ask. Unless you did the translation you got this from a webpage. You should always cite those.

"And famously "Each time a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." Luther was livid. He wrote to protest this sale to the Archibishop (indicating that he believed at that point in church authority), and when nothing would be done posted the 95 theses on the door to the Wittenburg chapel. In these theses, he denied certain abilities of the Pope to remit sin but did NOT deny church authority: .....As you can see, Luther's mind was being transformed. But it was REFORM he wanted, not a revolution."

Irrelevant. He got Revolution. He even encoraged it soon enough.

"He was still very Catholic in much of his theology. Rather than take a look at his church, Pope Leo dismissed him as a drunken German who will think better when he had sobered up."

He admitted being a rather drunken man - on more than one occasion too. He seems to have been a tortured soul.

"When he finally did get a full audience with the church it was for a heresy trial."

No. He never had an audience with the Church nor was he deserving of one. He appeared before the Diet of Worms - which was NOT an ecclesiastical body.

"He had been promised safe conduct, but the Elector had to hide him. By this point, he was standing on Scripture alone."

He was standing on only his interpretations. He never stood on scripture.

"In first years of the 1520s, Luther, hidden away did translate the Bible into German."

Incorrect. He translated, if it can be said he really did that either, the NT in the early 1520's. The OT was only done years later.

"The epiphany that I spoke of did occur at this time period where you see Luther's understanding of Scripture growing and a further transformation of his theology occuring. It was here that he truly understood Sola Gratia as never before: ...It was also around this period of time, maybe a little earlier, that the break with Rome, initiated BY ROME, would become permanent."

You're nuts if you think the whole Church BROKE FROM ONE MAN. He broke off from the Church when he lied about his obedience, obstinantly held to his heresy and spread it.

"Something about being locked up with nothing but a Greek Bible that changes a person. SOLA FIDE. SOLA GRATIA. SOLA SCRIPTURA. SOLOS CHRISTOS. Became more real than ever. He would not go back to Rome."

He would not go back? So you mean it wasn't the Church that broke from him now? Freudian slip there Blogger? You tell tall tales, but you could at least stick to one tall tale!

"Check your history. Tetzel sold indulgences under the authority of the Pope, Leo X."

Incorrect. If Tetzel sold indulgences it was under his own authority for it was illegal to do so. What you listed from the Catholic Encyclopedia in no way contradicts that either. While Leo was pope, his desire for money meant that he turned his head away from many serious abuses of Church offices. It does not mean in the slightest that he EVER authorized indulgences to be sold. Also, if you knew what you were talking about, and you don't, you would know that Albrecht of Mainz, the Archbishop who allowed Tetzel to preach in his diocese made it clear exactly what his instructions were. Albrecht told Tetzel what amounts should be donated for the indulgence depending on the person’s social standing. In the Middle Ages, it was expected that people would donate according to their status. Those who were wealthy would donate more than those who were merely lower class. Albrecht made it explicitly clear that those who had no money to donate should still be given the indulgence anyway. That means there were to be NO SALES OF INDULGENCES. A sale would mean money MUST be exchanged. That was not to be the case with Tetzel. If he sold indulgences he was violating the explicit instructions of the presiding authority in the diocese in which he was operating and, therefore, would be violating canon law.

“Concerning your "Hubric" Luther quote, do you even care to see the context. Of course, Luther was being Luther when he wrote it - and I have to laugh because his language is so typically Luther. But, you cherry pick a quote as evidence that Luther wasn't Sola Scriptura and fail to take the whole context which Luther Himself explained later on. Read and enjoy.”

No, I quoted Luther in no cherry pick way. It shows EXACTLY who Luther was. Luther was not just his own master, but he believed he was, in a sense, master interpreter of the scriptures. He condemned those who disagreed with him, including eventually old friends.

Your further quoting of Luther only proves just how full of himself he was. He believed he could change scriptures to fit his ramblings.

“As to Baptism (boy you did have a loaded post there),I do not believe it is an essential.”

And you will is reason enough, right? And now you will twist scriptures to suit your purpose? Right.

“The thief on the cross was not baptized.”
1) How do you know he was not? You are assuming he was not.
2) Would baptism be expected of a man who could not be baptized?

“Paul was thankful that he had only baptized a few folks. If it were part of one's actual salvation, then it would be an essential.”

Christ makes it plain it was essential.

“You cite the unity of certain protestant groups verses baptists. To my knowledge, none of the groups mentioned believes that one must ABSOLUTELY be baptized to be saved.”

I didn’t say they did. But if it is essential, then there is a quandary for Protestants.

“Calvin believed Baptism was much like the covenant God had with Israel through circumcision. In an infant, it was a way to dedicate that infant through grace to God's care in the belief that the infant would one day grow to be a Christian. He believed it should be practiced indiscriminately though. The elect would be properly baptized. The non-elect would get wet and would be no worse off. Luther believed in infant baptism, but justified it with passages of Scripture that seem to teach infant faith and analagous to circumcision.”

Again, I think you need to read more and talk less. Luther and Calvin both could give mixed messages on baptism: “In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.” (The Larger Catechism by Martin Luther, p. 113).

“God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, p. 1462).

“Vladimir, you do seem to be heavily tainted by Catholic bias against the reformers.”

They weren’t reformers. They were Revolutionaries. And Catholic bias? Yeah, and Protestants have no Protestant bias? I have a Christian bias. My Church was established by Christ. Yes, it’s the Catholic Church.

“Nobody here follows the reformers.”

Wow, you really need to read more (here if no where else).

“We enjoy reading them, yes. But as human beings they were very imperfect. Then again, all of us are. We follow Christ and listen to man insofar as he is in harmony with Scripture. It can be no other way.”

It is another way for you. You listen to men, Protestant men, tell you what the Bible says. When you study it, you study it according to the principles of Protestants. You interpret according to Protestant principles. It isn’t the scriptures you live in harmony with. You force Christianity, what parts of it you can tolerate, to bend to your wills.

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.