Posted on 11/01/2011 6:08:48 PM PDT by rzman21
Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible?
By COGwriter
Most people realize that the Living Church of God (or any of the true Churches of God) cannot be part of the Roman Catholic Church. However, some do not realize that the Living Church of God is not part of the Protestant reformation movement led by Martin Luther (our history predates Luther, and the actual Roman Catholic Church for that matter, please see the History of Early Christianity).
Regarding the Bible, the Living Church of God believes that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and, and is profitable for doctrine" (II Timothy 3:16, NKJV throughout unless otherwise stated).
Did Martin Luther agree?
Martin Luther publicly taught that only the Bible should be used as doctrine. One of the rallying cries of his movement was sola Scriptura (translated in English as 'the Bible alone'). This is one of the major positions that many professing Protestants respect Martin Luther for.
Although Martin Luther stated that he looked upon the Bible "as if God Himself spoke therein" he also stated,
My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O'Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916--1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).
[Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was ""Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet" (Luther, 682) - also translated as "I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ's word, so my mouth is His who utters the words"(God's words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm, September 25, 2003).]
Did Martin Luther really revere and believe the Bible more than his own opinions? This article will quote Martin Luther extensively to assist the reader in answering that question.
Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans
The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:
...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).
Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By "papists" he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.
Perhaps it should also be noted that Martin Luther also claimed that the word for "alone" was needed for a translation into the German language, but that is really only true if one feels that the word alone must be added (according to one person I consulted with who studied German). The truth is that Martin Luther intentionally added a word and many sadly relied on it.
A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine.
He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states,
...because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 (O'Hare, p. 201).
This presumably was to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law.
Martin Luther Made At Least One Other Intentional Mistranslation
Martin Luther has also been charged with intentionally mistranslating Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, and many other scriptures (ibid, p. 200).
Matthew 3:2 states,
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
Martin Luther, in his German translation, according to at least one Catholic source, changed the word 'repent' to 'mend' or 'do better' (ibid, p. 201), presumably to justify his position that one does not need to obey God's laws through repentance. Others disagree on that point and indicate that the German term chosen can or should be translated as repent.
Yet, irrespective of the translation (as I do not know enough German to have a strong opinion), Martin Luther did not seem to teach strong real repentance as he taught,
Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
Martin Luther seemed to overlook what the Book of Hebrews taught:
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).
The Bible, in Acts 19:18, states,
"And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds..."
Yet according to one source, Martin Luther rendered it, "they acknowledged the miracles of the Apostles" (O'Hare, p. 201).
There are several possible reasons why Martin Luther intentionally mistranslated Acts 19:18, but the point on this article is to show that he did.
Another point to be made is that by making mistranslations of the Bible, Protestants have given Catholics reasons to ignore them (cf. 2 Peter 2:1-3). Here is what one Catholic priest has written:
The proponents of Protestantism made false translations of the Bible and misled people into their errors by apparently proving from the "Bible" (their own translations) the correctness of their doctrines. It was all deceit, lying and hypocrisy. (Kramer H.B. L. The Book of Destiny. Nihil Obstat: J.S. Considine, O.P., Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: +Joseph M. Mueller, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, January 26, 1956. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 224).
Perhaps I should add that many important Protestant-accepted doctrines would have been understood as false if later Protestant translators also would not have made their own intentional mistranslations of other parts of the Bible, especially in the New Testament. Yet, many who profess sola Scriptura even in the 21st century do not know that some of what they have relied on has been intentionally mistranslated.
Martin Luther Preferred to Change John 1:14
Martin Luther also taught,
And John 1 says: "The Word was made flesh," when in our judgment it would have been better said, "The Word was incarnate," or "made fleshly" (Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ February 27, 1540 conducted by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546 translated from the Latin text WA 39/2, pp. 92-121 by Christopher B. Brown).
This was apparently done to justify his belief that Jesus was fully God and fully human while on the earth.
As Martin Luther correctly pointed out, John 1:14 states that "the Word was made flesh", yet John 1:14, combined with Philippians 2:6-7 show that Jesus 'emptied Himself' (the proper Greek translation; see Green JP. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 3rd ed., 1996, p. 607) of His divinity while on the earth.
If not, He could not have been tempted as we are, which He was,
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" Hebrews 4:15-16).
This is discussed more in the article on Binitarianism.
Martin Luther Stated Jesus Meant the Opposite of What He Said
The Bible, in Luke 10:28, states,
"And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (KJV).
Yet Martin Luther taught,
To do means to believe-to keep the law by faith. The passage in Matthew: Do this and thou shalt live, signifies Believe this and thou shalt live. The words Do this, have ironical sense, as if our Lord should say: Thou wilt do it tomorrow, but not today; only make an attempt to keep the Commandments, and the trial will teach thee the ignominy of thy failure (O'Hare, p.205).
Although Martin Luther mentioned Matthew's account (which is in Matthew 19:16-21), the quote in question is actually from Luke 10:28. It is because of such misinterpretations of what the Bible states that many Protestants have tossed out the necessity to keep the ten commandments, even though scholars agree that they were kept by the early Christians (please see the article The Ten Commandments and the Early Church).
Martin Luther's comments clearly suggest that he felt that Jesus meant the opposite of what He said in Matthew 19:16,
"But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments".
Two articles of related interest may include What Did Jesus Teach About the Ten Commandments? and Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants
Martin Luther Taught Certain Books of the Bible Were Questionable
Martin Luther had different views of various books of the Bible. Specifically, he had a fairly low view of the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:
As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Reid, George J. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik Canon of the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Martin Luther himself was the obvious reason why, as he wrote,
Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. In the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546).
Regarding the New Testament Book of Hebrews Martin Luther stated,
It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw (O'Hare, p. 203).
He also wrote,
St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).
and
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term 'faith alone':
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24).
One would have to assume that the fact that James 2:24 contradicted Martin Luther's sola fide teaching would have been a major reason that he discounted this book of the Bible.
Protestant scholars have recognized that Martin Luther handled James poorly as they have written:
The great reformer Martin Luther...never felt good about the Epistle of James...Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.
(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)
Martin Luther taught,
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle…Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
To me, Jude does not sound that similar to 2 Peter, but if even it is, should it be discounted? Maybe Martin Luther discounted it because it warns people:
...to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). And this, sadly, is not something that Martin Luther really did (though he did sometimes make some efforts towards that).
Perhaps none of Martin Luther's writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,
About this book of the Revelation of John...I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning,
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).
Martin Luther took away from this book through his comments about it, and this is the same Martin Luther who (as shown previously in this article) added words to the Bible that were not there.
Martin Luther's Comments on Books of the Old Testament Show A Hate for Things Jewish
As the following quotes show, Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:
"Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book."…
"Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it...Solomon did not, therefore, write this book."…
"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."
"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." (as quoted in O'Hare, p. 202).
Furthermore, Martin Luther had little use for the first five books of the Old Testament (sometimes referred to as the Pentateuch):
Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses" (Ibid, p. 202).
Martin Luther hated the Jews, which may be why he was against Esther, the first five books of the Bible, and other parts of the Hebrew scriptures.
Notice that Martin Luther advised his followers,
...to burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs (Luther’s Works, vol. Xx, pp. 2230-2632 as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.99).
Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch (Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543 as quoted from Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268293).
More on Martin Luther and the Jews (as well as some of his other doctrinal positions) can be found in the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong.
Martin Luther Claimed that John Was the Only True Gospel
Although Martin Luther decried John for penning the Revelation of Jesus Christ, he did like John. According to Martin Luther,
The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than His oral teachings; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred above the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels (O'Hare, p. 203).
Martin Luther's position on this, and some of his other matters, appear to be blasphemous and in contraction to II Timothy 3:16.
Martin Luther' German Translation of the Bible
Perhaps it should be mentioned, that while some have credited Martin Luther with being the first person to translate the Bible into German, this was not the case.
The first translation of the Bible into Teutonic (old German) was apparently by Raban Maur, who was born in 776 (O'Hare, p.183). Actually, by 1522 (the year Martin Luther's translation came out) there were at least 14 versions of the Bible in High German and 3 in Low German (ibid).
However, it is true that Martin Luther's translation, became more commonly available, and possibly more understandable (in a sense)--even though it did include his intentional translating errors.
Martin Luther Preferred to Change a Commandment
Martin Luther seemed to believe that the Sabbath command had to do with learning about God's word, as opposed to rest, as he wrote about it,
What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1986, p. 10).
"We sin against the Third Commandment when we despise preaching and the Word of God...What does God require of us in the Third Commandment? A. We should hold preaching and the Word of God sacred" (Ibid, p. 68).
The Lutheran Confessions admit:
As we study Luther's expositions of the Decalog, or the Ten Commandments, we find that he does not quote the Third Commandment in its Old Testament form: 'Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy', but rather in the spirit of the New Testament: 'Thou shalt sanctify the holy day' (Mueller, John Theodore. The Lutheran Confessions. Circa 1953, p.10).
In another place, Martin Luther wrote,
Now follows the Third Commandment: "Thou shalt hallow the day of rest." (Luther, M. A treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedication, published 1520. In Works of Martin Luther. Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915, Vol. 1, pp. 173-285).
It should be noted that Lutherans (and Roman Catholics) consider the Sabbath to be the Third, not Fourth, Commandment. The order that Martin Luther chose to accept was an order changed by Augustine (please see the article Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Church of God?) and not the order from the Bible or that as understood by the early Church (please see the article The Ten Commandments and the Early Church). Sadly, Martin Luther often accept Roman Catholic changes instead of believing what the Bible actually taught (and of course, he came up with other teachings that neither the Bible nor the Roman Church supported).
Martin Luther Preferred to Teach Doctrines That Did Not Have Proper Scriptural Support
Martin Luther apparently decided that he could not understand God, but that he should teach the unbiblical doctrine of the trinity. Notice what one Protestant scholar wrote:
For Luther, as for the German mystics, God is Deus absconditus, the "hidden God," inaccessible to human reason...
By emphasizing the sole authority of Scripture and downgrading the work of the church fathers and the decisions of the ecumenical councils, Luther created a problem for his followers. One the one hand, Luther wanted to affirm traditional theology with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ, but on the other those doctrines are not explicit in Scripture. They are the product of church fathers and the councils (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 314).
It should be noted here that NONE of the so-called "church fathers" prior to the end of the second century espoused any trinitarian position (more can be found in the article Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?).
A French Protestant named Rabaud declared,
Luther has no fixed theory of inspiration: if all his works suppose the inspiration of the Sacred Writings, all his conduct shows that he makes himself the supreme judge of it (Rabaud, Histoire de la doctrine de l inspriaation dans les pays de langue francaise depuis la Reforme jusqu a nos jours Paris, 1883, p.42 as quoted in O'Hare, p. 203).
Thus even Protestant scholars realize that Martin Luther considered Prima Luther to be of more importance than Sola Scriptura--those interested in doing God's will should heed the Bible, and most should read the article The Bible and Tradition.
Martin Luther held many doctrinal positions that did not have biblical support, as well as some that did (please see the documented article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong.
Martin Luther Declared That Part of Three Days Equaled Three Days and Three Nights
The Catholic-supporting Augustine declared through an odd calculation that three days and three nights equaled thirty-six hours as ratios of twelve came to thirty-six (please see the article What Happened in the Crucifixion Week?).
Martin Luther, who had been a Roman Catholic, also did not accept that Jesus was in the grave for three days and three nights as he wrote,
How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that be rose on the third day (Luther M. Of Christ's Resurrection from volume II:238-247 of The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI). It was originally published in 1906 in English by Lutherans in All Lands Press (Minneapolis, MN), as The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 11).
However, Jesus clearly said He would be in the grave for three days AND three nights and this would be the sign religious leaders should pay attention to:
An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:39-40).
Jesus being the Messiah was to be proven by Him being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth like Jonah was in the belly of the great fish.
Should we believe the Bible or human tradition? Does anyone really believe that ratios of 12 are how Jesus expected His words to be understood?
Notice what the Book of Jonah states:
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17).
Does any one really feel that Jonah was only in the belly of the fish for less than three days and three nights?
(Most Protestant commentators hedge on this and claim that parts of days is acceptable so 49 hours is possible--see The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press. Of course the problem with this is that even with 49 hours, it is not possible that Jesus was buried before sunset, about 6:00pm, on Friday and rose prior to sunrise, about 6:00am, on Sunday as that only adds up to 36 hours. Furthermore, if one takes the fact that Jesus died about 3:00 pm, as opposed to the time He was buried, that only makes 39 hours. Hence there is no way that any who actually believes the scriptures over personal interpretation can agree with Martin Luther.)
Conclusion
This author cannot agree with Martin Luther's assessment of the books of the Bible, nor Martin Luther's personal changes.
It appears that Martin Luther truly preferred the concept of prima Luther (the primacy of Luther) and not sola Scriptura when it came to doctrine.
Those of us in the Living Church of God believe that all 66 books of the Bible are inspired and profitable for doctrine (II Timothy 3:16). Because we also believe that we are not allowed to add or subtract from the Bible (see Revelation 22:18-19), we cannot follow the teachings of Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther—who changed or diminished the importance of at least 18 of them (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation).
For a more complete background on the history of the Living Church of God, please request its free booklet God's Church Through the Ages or read it online at http://www.lcg.org/files/booklets/gca/default.htm.
For more information on how the Living Church of God differs from Protestantism, please read the article, Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differs from most Protestants. To understand the the relationship between the Bible and tradition, please read Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings.
For specific information regarding the teachings of Martin Luther, please see the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert Armstrong.
Back to home page www.cogwriter.com
Thiel B., Ph.D. Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible? www.cogwriter.com (c) 2003/2006/2007/2008/2009/2011 1024
You must be referring to something other than a Catholic Easter Mass where the Resurrection of Jesus is the most significant event on the Liturgical calendar.
Answer my question first what would you have done? Don't quote me DOGMA of the church. What would you personally have done? Please keep in mind I do know that divored members of the RCC can and are granted permission to marry. It takes a long drawn out process.
I misjudged you and I apologize. I would have done exactly what you did.
I was young but very carefully considered who I would choose to be the mother of my children and then married her nearly 40 years ago. I took my vows very seriously and have remained married, faithful and fully supportive even though my wife has been physically and mentally disabled for four years. If my wife dies before I do I will not remarry.
The 'sign' or significant point/purpose was NOT the 'resurrection', but the final for one and all time perfect sacrifice, wherein ALL who would believe were given direct access to the Heavenly Father through Christ. Wonder why there is NO/NONE acknowledgment of that 'miracle' that took place as the 'flesh' body died on the cross wherein the 'veil' in the temple that hid the priest was rent from top to bottom. Jesus already told Nicodemus in John 3 that NO one goes to 'heaven' before they come through this flesh age from above. Jesus even asked Nicodemus being of Israel did not already know this, meaning the knowledge of the purpose of this flesh journey had already been recorded in the prophets. Paul said to 'remember' that Christ was our Passover... referring back to the first celebrated Passover when the people were protected from the 'death' angel by marking their doorposts with the blood of sacrifice... (Hebrews 2:14 tells us who the 'death' angel is.) Just because a flesh person calls/claims something 'holy' does NOT speak for what the Heavenly Father considers 'holy'... most especially when we have the instruction book that Christ said He before one word of the so called 'new' was ever recorded, 'foretold all things'... Amazing how accurate those 'WORDS' have forewarned any who will pay attention. Jeremiah even did a bit of warning about those celebrating the festivities of 'goddess/queen of heaven', Ishtar. But hey whatever leavening it takes to fill up the pews.
Check out the word 'woe' and almost every time it is used it is associated with false preachers and the doctrines and traditions they mix in like leavening.... God Himself divorced the House of Israel for her 'religious idolatry', Jeremiah 3.
A doctor who deals in spinal cord rehab asked us how long we had been married and if we married before or after onset. We said a month and after the onset. He was considerably relieved and told us something people would not think about.
When a person becomes severely disabled in a marriage often time the other spouse can not accept the other not being or rather not being able to do as they did before. Marriages after the fact fair better as the persons realize there are limitations. I accepted her for her disabilities. Nine years later it was her turn. I became disabled and had to retire.
GOD knows our needs and our futures and provides. I did not loose my physical strength. I can lift her etc. I lost mey sensory processing system not 100% but enough too cause seizures and limit greatly my tolerances to many auditory and visual sensory input. No cure just treatment and it won't kill me.
I can drive and do what needs doing for us. But I can never work. Trips shopping are late at night if possible so noise and in store announcements are few. Places like McDonalds counters inside I can't handle. Their alarms drive me too a point i can't function. What a matching pair of bookends LOL. I'm also over 50% deaf now. It's hard to explain but Inner Ear damage and the auditory/visual portion of my brain have some issues. I was born with it and it progressed to a point of disability and stopped progressing.
The chances of me even meeting my current wife we nil until I took a transfer after my first wife death which I intended to turn down LOL.
Was it sin to marry? That one has been debated through the ages. Most churches including the RCC do have conditions allowing divorced to remarry. I hope it doesn't happen again but if I again am again a widower at this point I would very likely stay single. There is a lot of difference between being 28 and 54. This month is our 26th year. GOD bringing her into my life was the best thing that could have happened too me at that point.
My vows mean too love honor cherish in sickness and in health for richer and for poorer till death do we part. We started out broke and LOL well that part never changed but it don't matter.
My wifes EX lost a very remarkable woman. He's been married about 6 times now last count. very sad.
Half of my dads family is RCC. I have a cousin & she is confined to a wheelchair. For reasons you may understand about the doctrine of marriage for having children they married in a civil ceremony. They had two kids afterward. LOL.
An urban legend perpetuated by the ignorant. It's hard to fathom that you could be so dense yet still receive a commission.
As only one example amongst many, much of the Bible was translated into English by a monk in Whitby by the name of Caedmon at the end of the seventh century. That was long before Wycliff's corrupted version appeared in 1382 or Luther's hatchet job in 1520.
It is true for the umbrella term "Baptists" but not for specific baptist groups -- the reason is because of the nature of the Baptist movement which is non-creedal.
I can state for a fact that some of the Baptists I interact with on FR, in fact all of those I closely interact with, like Mr. Rogers, believes in the same tenets encapsulated in the Nicene Creed that we in the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican etc. Church believe in.
However, since a new Baptist church could technically deny this, I cannot say all Baptist churchs hold to the Nicene Creed (Mr. R -- am I correct on this?) with the same surety I can say that, say, Presbyterians hold to the Nicene Creed (if a Presbyterian group denies the Nicene Creed then by very definition it ceases to be Presbyterian, and, arguably, Christian as we know it).
For this, I can't comment on reasons but just as many Baptists and I'm sure Lutherans have had ingrained ideas about Catholics that are not true, so too would Catholics and Orthodox have -- it's one of the vagaries of human nature that we believe the worst about others.
Luther was no fool -- in fact I'd argue that he was very well studied. We would of course debate the steps he took but we can agree on his scholarly nature.
As far as cults, this isn't anything new nor is it a Protestant invention. There have ALWAYS been cults going back to Paul's time. That is the reason many of the creeds were written. However, if your feeling is that a cult is someone who left the Church to start their own, I sincerely doubt you would classify the Orthodox to be a "cult" when they left the Catholic Church in 1000AD.
Thanks Mr Rogers for those kind words. I haven’t been out here myself as much as I would like. There are simply too many things going on in my life at the moment. Nothing serious-simply having to run here and there.
You will find true Protestants have a wary eye to anyone who claims to be divinely inspired, including those who claim the infallibility of the Pope. We simply don't believe that. All men are subject to error and all writing is error-prone except the scriptures. There is no greater truth among Protestants than to verify everything through scripture. That is the meaning of Sola Scriptura.
Where the Church fails is simply in placing their faith in either a man (e.g. the Pope) or in a select few body of men. For all practical purposes, the Church really no longer believe in the Holy Spirit as a guider to all truth for an individual. They believe in "traditions" of the Church-oh yeah, scripture where it fits. Yet scripture tells us you are sealed with the Holy Spirit. So what exactly does the Holy Spirit do all day long inside you?
It bears repeating that the Catholic Church believes in the infallibility of a man and even put it in writing. Even the Orthodox laughs at that one.
Which Nicene Creed? The Orthodox don't buy into the filique on the Nicene Creed believing this was changed by the Latin Church. Would you say this stops the Orthodox from being Christian because they disagree that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son"?
I find it a very dangerous game to try to determine who's a Christian and who's not based upon their theology. Each of us will have to give an accounting of our own lives and actions. Unless we rely upon Christ's righteousness for our salvation, then we will be found wanting, regardless of whether we believe in the Nicene Creed, unicorns failed to make it on the ark, or anything else for that matter.
False analogy -- firstly, the Orthodox object to the filioque as not in council and secondly both sides have acknowledged that they have the same meaning yet do not agree on the wording
Thirdly, whichever Nicene Creed -- Baptists do not "accept" Creeds.
I find it a very dangerous game to try to determine who's a Christian and who's not based upon their theology. -- so then on what basis do you reject Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons?
If you think that it's ok to just rely upon Christ's righteousness for our salvation then why do you argue with people over other theological matters?
Why the arguments over double-predestination?
If everyone relies upon Christ's righteousness for their salvation, then you should have no argument with Jehovah's Witnesses as they say they do that -- ditto for Mormons.
“As only one example amongst many, much of the Bible was translated into English by a monk in Whitby by the name of Caedmon at the end of the seventh century. That was long before Wycliff’s corrupted version appeared in 1382 or Luther’s hatchet job in 1520. “
Caedmon did not translate. A work attributed to him, but made later, “...was in two stages: the initial version of the manuscript contained Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel, and was the work of a single scribe. Later the final poem, Christ and Satan, was added by several other scribes.”
Hardly “much of the Bible”, and not a formal translation.
Bede translated the Gospel of John.
The Wessex Gospels appeared around 1000 AD.
No attempt was made to translate the entire NT into English, in any form, until Wycliffe - which was NOT a corrupt version, but an honest translation of the Latin, as most Catholics will agree.
No attempt was made by the Catholic Church to allow commoners in England to read the scriptures in their native tongue until AFTER Tyndale - and then it was done so badly that it was revised IAW the KJV in the 1700s.
And it is simply STUPID to call Luther’s work a “hatchett job”.
Further, I’ve already provided the proof on this thread that it was a matter of policy for hundreds of years for the Roman Catholic Church to prevent vernacular translations from falling into the hands of commoners.
Again, read some history. It is beyond dispute that the Roman Catholic Church opposed commoners from reading scripture in the vernacular. While not a concern prior to 1000 AD, it became one - maybe because the more the Catholic Church departed from the truth of the scriptures, the more threatened it was by them.
But it wasn’t subtle or hidden - the Catholic Church openly opposed it as a matter of policy.
I'm not sure WHAT Baptist you're talking about. I've noticed that you have """" around accept so I can only assume you disagree that Baptist have trouble with creeds. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please note John Piper statement from his book, "Don't Waste Your Life".
This Jesus was and is a real historical man in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). Since he is “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,” as the old Nicene Creed says, and since his death and resurrection are the central act of God in history, it is not surprising to hear the Bible say, “All things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16). For him! That means for his glory.
Excerpt from Don't Waste Your Life by John Piper
Because theology matters. We are commanded to share the gospel and, yes, that includes discussing and understanding theology.
If everyone relies upon Christ's righteousness for their salvation, then you should have no argument with Jehovah's Witnesses as they say they do that -- ditto for Mormons.
Not everyone relies upon Christ's righteousness for their salvation. There are many in this world who believe they can actually do something pleasing to God; live a good life, don't kick dogs, throw a couple of coins in the offering plate, and maybe tell someone they've sinned three times during the week.
Our Lord Jesus covered all our sins; past, present and future. Our prayer should be that He would be merciful to use us where He deems appropriate. Any view outside this box and I would recommend a serious and prayful reexamination of one's beliefs.
Let me try to rephrase, and see if HarleyD agrees...
It is Jesus who saves, not theology. The thief on the cross didn’t have a lot of knowledge ABOUT Jesus, but he MET Jesus and repented.
In a Baptist vs Catholic debate, there are Baptists who have theology that agrees with me, yet who are mean, bitter people who show no sign of caring about what God wants in their life. And I’ve met Catholics who may or may not have known about church teachings, but who also were willing to screw anything with two legs.
It isn’t knowledge of theology that saves, but Jesus. And it is hard to judge by theology if the person knows Jesus or not. It is by their FRUIT that you will know them, not by their doctrinal creed.
That is why I am convinced that a number of Catholics on this forum - with whom I have strong doctrinal disagreements - are Christians. When we stand before God, we will not be given a theology test and judged by our position on real presence, transubstantiation, or Mariology - or water baptism, or beliefs about priests.
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
That does not excuse a theology that rejects Jesus or his grace. If someone believes Jesus is the created brother of Satan, they do NOT know the Jesus who exists. If someone - Baptist or Catholic, and I’ve met examples from both - believes their good life is what counts, they are damned.
But Catholics and Baptists both believe in water baptism, although we disagree about why we were commanded to do it. I believe God will judge our heart, not administer a theology exam.
I will sometimes debate theology, because I believe it helps us to know God better if we know more about who he is and what he wants from us.
Actually, a lot of Eastern Catholic Church that are subject to Rome do not use the filioque either.
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.