Well, hello again, annalex. I seem to recall encountering you on another, but similar thread. You are a bit more circumspect that some of the others that have been, as you say, keeping me busy.
Most of what you say in your general comments I, of course, do not agree with. I do acknowledge, however, a corresponding schizophrenia toward the Roman church. I commend the fact that you still hold to the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, as do we. I don’t appreciate the fascination with Pelagius you could never quite let go of. And, yes, Lutherans too tend to be a bit hard on their Roman cousins, since you are Christendom’s original sin, for which we have quite a lot of Scriptural support, none of it in need of being ripped from its context to support an agenda. 2 Thessalonians 2 would be a good place to start.
No, we didn’t start it. You did, long before the Reformation. At the Reformation you just doubled down instead of owning up.
A symmetrical picture ... I don’t know about that. Leaving that mathematical term aside, there is an analogous relationship to the way Rome views the Bible and the way the radical reformers do. You can dismiss this in your own mind, if you like. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Both enlist the judgment of man to tell God what He means.
You keep saying Luther falsified the Scriptures. To do so you point to one word in one example. Surely you can do better than that. Besides which, the word “alone” can be dropped from the translation, but the meaning remains the same, “by faith, without the works of the law.”
Looking at your last big paragraph, not the little totally false one at the end, you are still standing where you were on June 25, 1530. We have the Scriptures and you have the fathers (but by no means all of them!); and nothing has changed. Your arguments against the Augsburg Confession are no better now than those found in the pathetic Confutation, both of which are readily available on the net. I invite the truth seekers on this thread to just read and compare them. And, by the way, the Confutation was answered by the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, also readily available.
Peace in Christ.
Of course. Or on any point since the Pentecost onward. This is precisely, where the comparisons to self-propelled radical Protestants end.
If you have a scriptural argument for Faith Alone (the article is about the falsity of Scripture Alone, but no one seems to have a coherent argument on that score), please feel free to make it.
Also, if "allein" inserted in Rom 3:24 is honest translation, why was it subsequently dropped?
Disparaging, and in the case of the Deuterocanon, dropping altogether the scripture Luther did not like is not limited to the fraud of his version of Rom. 3:24. This is the pervasive methodology that is the ugly cousin of Luther's Sola Scriptura.
- The Deuterocanon was dropped
- the Letter of James was declared "of straw"
- the parables of the Gospel were declared hermeneutically wrong to teach from
Luther really worked hard to discredit the scripture that he disagreed with.