Posted on 03/15/2008 10:17:55 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
More than once during these talks I referred to Luther and what always occurred to me as his destructive influence. I pointed out that even in such an admirable book as Rohan Butler's “The Roots of National Socialism” the spiritual origins of Nazism and Luther's influence had not been given the necessary importance. Then I was asked if I would be prepared to elaborate to them—about a dozen of the very senior boys, that is—my own views on Luther and Lutheranism. I agreed—with the proviso that they would be my own views and nothing else. Admittedly, I had read more on Luther and about Luther than on most other subjects. But I wanted to make it quite clear that I would not speak to them with the voice of a great authority, but would merely give them my own interpretation. I told them, moreover, that I should try to prove how dangerous it is to accept legends; and that the picture I had of Luther and his influence was thoroughly contradictory of the customary Luther of the legend.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicapologetics.info ...
Perhaps no one cares what you will admit or defend.
Hitler is in hell, Luther is in heaven with Christ Jesus awaiting the rapture for his glorified body given to all those who believe how that Jesus Christ died for sins and rose again the third day.
I am not sure that Catholics trust only the work of the bloody cross and Jesus ressurection from the dead that thay may be saved by grace throught faith, believe the whole Word of God, and be indwelt by the Holy Spirit so they can do good works.
Martin Luther made an attempt to guide the roman church back to Sola Scritura, but the catholic church loves traditions and mysticism and would rather believe that they are saved by their fruitless good works, even if they are indeed good. And that violates God’s work at the cross of HIS only begotten son, much less the power of His ressurection. Martin Luther realized that he was lied to about the grace of God when he search the scriptures.
Hitler, the murderer of jews and christians and an occultist of Satan, was the typical athiest murderer.
Sola scriptura, ironically enough, does not appear in the Bible. It is a Tradition of Men.
You wrote:
“Not at all. Pressure is on you because of the actions of your past leaders.”
No, not at all. Pope Pius XII, according to several Jewish historians, saved more than 800,000 Jewish lives. I feel no pressure whatsoever.
“Quick, start talking bad about American Presidents.”
Please show me where I have done this in this thread. All I did was to twice point out the facts - FDR didn’t do as much as he could have yet, for some reason, no anti-Catholic here wants to be that honest. Why not?
“Sounds like my kids: But he did it, too.”
No, sounds more like a reasoned argument: if Pius, who saved 800,000 Jews, is so hated and vilified, why is not FDR who did so little and so late while leading a world power? And why do the anti-Catholics here heap scorn om Pius XII when he saved 800,000 Jews while giving FDR a complete pass when he actually passed up opportunities to save Jews?
“And, yes, that is a form of justification.”
Again, Pius saved more than 800,000 Jews. I don’t need to justify that. Pius is clearly a great hero in regard to saving Jews. FDR? Not so much. You are justifying FDR’s inaction while almost vilifying Pius’ action of saving 800,000 Jewish lives by saying all he committed evil actions. How is saving 800,000 Jewish lives an evil action? Please explain that to me. And while you’re at it, please explain to me why FDR should be applauded for not doing more to save Jews in WWII? If you want ammunition I’ll even help you out. Read Rosen’s Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust. Rosen shows how there is a lot of overblown ideas about what FDR could have done to save the Jews. His book isn’t well known, but it was easily accepted by lay people and scholars alike. The problem is that Pius XII faced just as many obstacles as FDR when it came to helping Jews but he still managed, against all odds, to save 800,000 Jews. When scholars point this out - today - this is treated with scorn while it was well known in the 40s that Pius had saved massive numbers of people. Rosen writes a book and barely anyone bats an eye at it. The lesson is clear: revisionist history on FDR is acceptable, but history about Pius XII that is not revisionist and merely proves what was already known by Jews and others in the 1940s is unacceptable. Clearly anti-Catholic sentiment is the key. It is the only thing diving the reception of Rosen’s book and conclusions and the works of Dalin, Rychlak, Lapide, Levai, Graham, Blet, O’Carroll, Doino, Zolli, the 12 folio volumes of the Actes, etc.
More ironic still: you begin “let me get this straight” and then proceed to twist the matter beyond all recognition.
Sola Scriptura simply means scripture only and was used by Martin Luther to make the point that God’s Word took precedence over the decadent Roman Church manufactured doctrines. The doctrines of the Roman church are much the same as the Pharisee’s doctrines in that they made the doctines of God into the mens doctrines throught the deceit of traditions that dishounered God and Christ. And so it is today, the modern Catholic church has done the same thing the pharisees did to the Book of Moses by changing doctrines to traditions.
Search the scriptures if you want to know the doctrines of God, especially the Book of Romans, the revelations of Jesus Christ to the Apostle Paul, the apostle to the gentiles.
Can you tell me where in the Bible - using sola scriptura - Martin Luther discovered the verse that said the Epistle of James and Revelation were not inspired?
Thanks in advance.
Yes, that's the irony. It's not in scripture. It is a Tradition of Men.
The doctrines of the Roman church are much the same as the Pharisee’s doctrines in that they made the doctines of God into the mens doctrines throught the deceit of traditions that dishounered God and Christ.
Baloney.
And so it is today, the modern Catholic church has done the same thing the pharisees did to the Book of Moses by changing doctrines to traditions.
Mortadelo.
Search the scriptures if you want to know the doctrines of God, especially the Book of Romans, the revelations of Jesus Christ to the Apostle Paul, the apostle to the gentiles.
Done and done. That's why I remain a member of the Roman Catholic Church, the one founded by Christ Himself.
One more thing, homosexuality the word does not appear in scripture, but sodomy does. Just because the english language did not exist then does not mean that homosexuality is not condemed of God.
Sola Scriptura= Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Better yet,
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Sola scriptura is Latin and could have been included (had it been intended). For that matter, it could have been stated in the Bible in Aramaic or Greek or any other language.
Alas, it was not.
[That’s why I remain a member of the Roman Catholic Church, the one founded by Christ Himself.]
This is the right of the first ammendment, but I believe God will leave the majority of the Catholic church members in the world when they will attend the church the sunday after the rapture, and I believe they will blame aliens from another world for taking those bible believing Christians out of the world. We are saved by grace through faith, our good works follow salvation. and no denomination gives salvation, not even the old corrupt roman church. I to was a Catholic until I read the Scriptures and become part of the Church of Christ started at Antioch as stated in the Scripure in the Book of Acts when God started the jew and gentile body of Christ. The catholics came later and started traditions. You will understand some day. Until then, search the scriptures.
[Alas, it was not.]
Alas indeed.
I have no intent in discussing FDR at all. Just noting a few things bemusedly.
As a personal preference, I tend to avoid discussing things with Catholics. Doesn’t matter, really. Catholicism doesn’t stand or fall on how stupid certain leaders were or how certain leaders behaved. It doesn’t stand or fall because Hitler was a Catholic. It doesn’t stand or fall because many Catholic leaders passively or actively helped Germans in WWII. Catholicsm falls because its doctrine is false.
LOL
I too was a Catholic...
Ahh. I have met your type a hundred times before (and none of them pleasant).
***You are justifying FDR’s inaction....***
What color is the sky in your world? I haven’t discussed FDR at all and, frankly, refuse to do so. It has absolutely nothing with how good or evil some Pope was. It is a non-issue.
I realize that Catholics are duty bound to defend their Popes. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to be starry-eyed. And, it doesn’t mean we have to be distracted by Catholic attempts to try and confuse things. I have this thing called a free choice and don’t have to bow down before any leader in my church.
Christ’s own Church is false but the Traditions of Men begun by a theocratic and apparently quite mad French lawyer are truth?
Oh my. Thanks for the belly laugh.
A Calvinist with free choice? Do tell!
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.