Posted on 01/25/2014 6:51:38 AM PST by GonzoII
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
"What will it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but does not have works? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14,26).Luther: "He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar"
***
"Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:11-12).
Luther: "As to divorce, it is still a moot question whether it is allowable. For my part, I prefer bigamy"
***
"Let no man say when he is tempted, that he is tempted by God; for God is no tempter to evil" (James 1:13).
Luther: "Judas' will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world"
***
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication . . . murder . . . and suchlike. And concerning these I warn you, they who do such things will not attain the Kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21).
Luther: "Sin boldly but believe more boldly. Let your faith be greater than your sin. . . Sin will not destroy us in the reign of the Lamb, although we were to commit fornication a thousand times in one day" (Letter to Melanchton, August 1, 1521, Audin p.178).
***
"And do not be drunk with wine, for in that is debauchery" (Eph. 5:18). "Keep thyself chaste" (I Tim. 5:22).
Luther "Why do I sit soaked in wine? ... To be continent and chaste is not in me"
We are seeing the first example of an unabashed JEDP adherent.
Luther has been dead for a long time; sooner or later you’re going to have to find someone else to argue with.
If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector
You already tried this remember, and what i said then still stands, this this nor anything else "does not translate into a perpetual infallible magisterium, which Rome infallibly decrees she is, and as Scripture nowhere promises nor requires this, no matter how much effort RCs try to extrapolate it from such texts as Mt. 18, then a church which claims this cannot be the OTC, and in fact it is cultic."
"In order argue otherwise you must establish from Scripture - that being the transcendent supreme material standard for Truth, as if abundantly evidenced , that such a magisterium was necessary for assurance of Truth, and to recognize and establish both writings as well as men of God as being so, thus those it rejects must be rejected. Let me know when you want to try. "
As for Luther, invoking him as if he was a pope to us, when he was more Catholic in many ways, and uncritically posting RC quotes simply makes you look illiterate or careless and desperate.
Luther actually said enough things that we disagree with to exclude him being our pope, while regarding Luther RCs are too willing to be like atheists who invoke such things as the Lord commending the unjust steward or calling a seeker a dog, or Paul saying the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies, (Titus 1:12) in order to misconstrue what was meant. And Luther engaged in much hyperbole and highly polemical language. Not that i agree with it all.
I have recommended that RCs search Swan's collection for such quotes, so at least they would understand the polemical context of such. But that would leave them more desperate.
And why not? Rome has sanctioned the JEDP , among other liberal revisionism, for decades in her own NAB Bible's notes, even on the Vatican web site. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P8.HTM
Paul’s letters were written over a period of about fifteen years(51 AD to 66AD) (after he had himself been a Christian for about fifteen years), and sent to churches and individuals far removed from one another. How, then, did these thirteen come together? The short answer is that we do not know; the evidence is too slight to be certain. In some cases Paul himself ordered limited circulation (Col. 4:16). Good arguments have been advanced in support of the view that Ephesians was first written as a general circular letter for believers in Ephesus and in neighbouring towns and cities, a general letter covering more specific ones such as Colossians and Philemon (and perhaps Philippians).
The first concrete list that has come down to us is the list of ten Pauline letters (excluding the Pastorals) compiled by Marcion (the leader of an unorthodox Christian movement about 140). Some scholars argue that this was the first time any such list was put together. But this is highly unlikely. Only a tiny fraction of written material from late antiquity has come down to us, and Marcion’s list is valuable primarily as evidence that larger, more orthodox lists were probably already circulating. It was the practice of such pseudo-Christian leaders to adapt Christian literature to their own needs. Marcion excluded all of the OT and most of the New; even of the gospels he preserved only a mutilated edition of Luke.
Others have argued that Paul’s letters were first brought together shortly after AD 90, fifty years before Marcion. Some devoted follower of Paul, spurred on by the publication of Acts (shortly before 90, on this view), pulled the extant Pauline letters together. But it is far more likely that Acts was published much earlier, about 61 or 62, and difficult to see why the collection of at least some of Paul’s writings would have had to wait for that event anyway. There is strong evidence that several of Paul’s letters are cited in the early apostolic fathers (especially Clement of Rome; c. 96). More importantly, 2 Pet. 3:16 refers to the way Paul writes ‘in all his letters’, an expression which, though it does not necessarily embrace precisely the thirteen canonical letters that have come down to us, certainly presupposes that there is common knowledge of a circulating body of Pauline correspondence. Although the weight of contemporary scholarship favours a late date for 2 Peter, substantial reasons can be adduced for a publication date as early as 64 or 65.
Thank you for that good article about JEPD.
>> “...the thirteen canonical letters that have come down to us...” <<
.
This idea of “canonical” writings has no support to be found in the scriptures. It presupposes the very nicolaitan force that Yeshua so thoroughly denounced. I can see why nicolaitan cults like the catholics promote it, but it denies the concept of the agreement among the members of the body.
If it were real, why did Yeshua pronounce woes upon the scribes?
It was not mine, but bless God for such. It is a slippery slope once one begin to say such things as the Pentateuch was written during the Babylonian captivity by editors. Holiophobic homosexual apologists make much use of this to claim "homophobic" editors took out "sanctified sodomy." Etc.
The slavery of unbelief that chains the soul is not apparent, when one starts the gradual descent into outer darkness. This is in sharp contrast to the mountaintop experience and joy of those who submit their hearts to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It is on the mountaintop that the scales fall off our eyes, and we see the liberating Truth found only in Jesus Christ.
Show me where the word *canon* is in the Bible.
I’ve asked you the same questions before, still waiting for your answer.
Great pulpit answer, but it still leaves the question of why unbelief would chain a person to such dependence on
“authorities.”
>> “Show me where the word *canon* is in the Bible” <<
.
I can show you where canon is rejected by Yeshua.
In the letters to the Asian churches, when Yeshua declares his hatred for the doctrine of Nicolaitanism.
He founded his congregation on himself to keep it free of canons, creeds, and other contrivances of men.
I read Scripture conveniently bound together in a book called the *Bible*.
Where did you ask me where the word *canon* is found in the Bible?
I also asked you where these words were also found and never got an answer. You can try again.
catholic
pope
magisterium
sacrament
eucharist
assumption
immaculate conception
purgatory
mass
apostolic succession
indulgence
annulment
confirmation
communion
sacred tradition
creed
original sin
venial sin
mortal sin
rosary
mother of God
canonization
free will
Memorizing and reciting IS the “Oral Tradition”
When did Jesus ever point to actual written Scripture?
Jesus did not carry Scripture with him since such things were expensive and rare and not easy to reproduce.
When you go to large group meetings do they not usually have hand outs of some type? Why is there no recorded event where Jesus or the Apostles had hand outs for the crowd?
Why did they never actually refer to Scripture that they held in their own hands or pointed to our handed out?
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BIBLE in the Early Church and because it was VERY rare for all current known works of Scripture to be in ONE PLACE in the Early Church.
You were not there.
You make claims which can not be supported.
I was not there either of course, but all reasonable people KNOW that copies of actual Scripture were RARE until the printing press, and that MOST Christians NEVER read from actual Scripture in the early Church, they learned for an Oral Tradition.
Psst,...He IS the Word.
Some on this thread think that copies of Sacred Scripture were easy to obtain and available to all who wanted to study or read them.
This is absurd.
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.