Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BillyBoy
GC: >> I agree with many of the writings of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. (The dead guys up above) <<

BB: Haven't read much of Augustine or Calvin, I'm familiar with some of Luther's writings. I agree with many of the problems he had with the Catholic church at that time (such as the church selling indulgences), I also have problems with many of writings, like his bitter anti-Jewish pamphlet "On the Jews and their lies" he published in his later years.

Again, I said "many." Do you agree with everything your church has written? Do you approve of the inquistion?

23 posted on 12/17/2009 1:59:05 AM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Gamecock
>>> I also have problems with many of writings, like his bitter anti-Jewish pamphlet "On the Jews and their lies" he published in his later years.Again, I said "many." Do you agree with everything your church has written? Do you approve of the inquistion? <<

No, I do not agree with every writing of the Catholic church. So I guess on this point we are in agreement, although we would probably disagree on the specifics of which of Luther's writings are correct and which are in error. I'm fairly certain that neither modern day Catholics nor Catholics from the reformation era rejected all of Luther's writings about Christianity. Indeed, after analyzing his work, the Vatican wanted Luther to retract 41 errors (some drawn from his 95 theses, some from other writings or sayings attributed to him), so they certainly didn't claim all 95 theses were falsehoods.

On the same note, you would probably agree with "many" (though certainly not all) papal bulls issued over the last 2000 years. For example, I doubt you would object to Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical, titled "God is Love"

>> Besides, the Apsotles were the first hand recipients of the Gospel, no? <<

Portions of it, yes. Certainly all the apostles were not present or even had knowledge of every event recorded in the four canonical gospels.

>> Besides, the NT was floating around among the elect before the formal canon was established. <<

Portions of it, yes. One of the things you have to remember is that before 313 A.D., Christianity wasn't even legal. Getting a decent collection of new testament books that we used today was probably hard to come by, I'd guess the average Christian back then only had access to fragments of new testament writings or oral re-tellings. That's why I disagree with the doctrine of "Sola scriptura", saying the Bible itself is necessary for salvation and no one other materials teaching about Christianity will do. The doctrine of Sola scriptura is itself unbibical, as there is no bible passage where Christians are told they have to rely sole on the holy bible writings.

64 posted on 12/17/2009 4:07:53 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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