Posted on 11/01/2012 6:45:48 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
How appropriate it is that Reformation Day (October 31st), celebrating Christ's victory over Evil for those who rest in Him, precedes All Saints Day (November 1st).
Martin Luther's defense of the authority of Scripture (alone) and of Justification by Faith (alone), at the Diet of Worms, is what we celebrate on Reformation Day. Without these biblical truths, which the Reformation re-established in opposition to evil church hierarchies, there would be no saints.
It's a shame that some Protestant and Anglican churches celebrate All Saints Day while failing to celebrate Reformation Day.
There are no saints apart from the principles of Sola Scriptura and Justification by grace alone through faith alone. What Luther insisted upon at this trial is precisely what condemned him, and that is the Gospel itself.
Continued non-adherence to these principles (outlined clearly in the 39 Articles) by Orthodox and Roman hierarchies, and yes, by hordes of neo-evangelical authorities, separates them not merely from the Reformation but from Christ. Luther's defense is as fresh today as it was then. Reformation Day is worth remembering. Here I stand.
Peters use of “keys” was an affirmation of decisions already made in heaven. Both the record in Acts and the Greek that Jesus’ words were recorded in reflect that.
The word priests is not applied to any within the Christian church while on earth. None. As heavenly rulers they are termed priests AND kings.
Are you kidding? I've been laughing the whole time!
Talking to yourself?
Onanistic posting. Good job.
II Timothy
2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
3:16 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Tradition can be refuted by DOCTRINE.
Acts 14:23
How do you account for that?
***He started by making Peter the earthly head of the church with the power to bind and lose.****
GALATIANS 2:
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Tradition can be DOGMA and DOGMA is more important than DOCTRINE.
Your uppercasing has been countered by my uppercasing.
What is it there that you’re asking an accounting for?
And Peter did rule on circumcision and his ruling was final.
Acts 15:7-11
New International Version (NIV)
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
Because it shows earthly, practical, priestly ordination, which is unlike the priesthood that you seem to accept.
***Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization...***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
I’ll stick with SAINT PAUL, the APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES.
GALATIANS 2:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
“Because it shows earthly, practical, priestly ordination,...”
Not so, men were being appointed as elders or older men over the congregations. The Greek for “priests” is not used here at all. Nor are the elders ever called or equated with priests over the congregations.
Rev. 20 describes the priesthood I accept.
***And Peter did rule on circumcision and his ruling was final.***
But it was JAMES who made the final decision!
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
***Then after this is when PETER went to Antioch and separated from the Gentiles because he feared certain men who came from JAMES!
It appeared JAMES, not PETER, ruled the roost in Jerusalem.
No, here James is agreeing with, and publicly supporting, Peter.
Bible needs to viewed in context as scripture does not contradict scripture. It is clear that many protestants reject tradition and that is why they get confused and take verses out of context. They simply don’t have the context that the Catholic Church has.
Peter has primacy. Peter was given the keys - not James.
By the way, who determined what was in the New Testament? Oh yeah - the Traditions of the Catholic Church.
They did so use “presbyter” in the Greek in Acts 14:23. I am starting to think about not being so charitable if you are purposely trying to deceive people.
Touche.
I can't wait to see how you try to rationalize a direct comparison between the errant traditions of men commemorated by Reformation Day and the celebration of the birth of Christ.
***By the way, who determined what was in the New Testament? Oh yeah - the Traditions of the Catholic Church.***
Actually, most of the churches already knew what the Scriptures were. The Latin only added James, 2Peter, 2&3 John, Jude and Revelation.
The Greek church wanted HEBREWS, which the Latin church did not want. And the Latin Church wanted Revelation which the Greek Church did not want, so they compromised and put both in.
Hebrews is one of the best books on Jesus and his ministry.
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.