Posted on 02/01/2017 6:33:59 PM PST by marshmallow
Evangelicals have been urged to celebrate the Reformation as "essential" to Christianity and resist attempts to dilute differences between Protestants and Catholics.
The Evangelical Alliance's statement to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, headlined on the Evangelical Alliance press release as "500 Years of Protest", praised the split as a recovery of Jesus' teaching. It emphasised ongoing "points of divergence" between the two traditions as well as acknowledging efforts at reconciliation and convergence after centuries of mistrust.
"As evangelicals, we owe a great deal of our doctrinal, spiritual and cultural identity to the Reformation," the statement read.
"The Reformation was not so much an innovation as a recovery – a recovery of the essential content of the 'evangel' or 'good news' of salvation proclaimed by Jesus Christ himself, and by his apostles. That work of recovery is reflected in our own designation as evangelicals."
It insists the "core distinctions" between Luther and the 16th-century Roman Catholic church "remain between modern-day evangelicals and Catholics despite efforts at reconciliation".
The statement marked a notably different tone to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York who called for repentance for the division. They lamented the "lasting damage done five centuries ago to the unity of the Church, in defiance of the clear command of Jesus Christ to unity in love".
(Excerpt) Read more at christiantoday.com ...
It insists the “core distinctions” between Luther and the 16th-century Roman Catholic church “remain between modern-day evangelicals and Catholics despite efforts at reconciliation”.
1)Truth is tested with the scriptures, not tradition...............
2) God established a new covenant. The temple and old sacrifice/priest system was destroyed.
Heb_8:10 But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people.
Heb_10:16 “This is the new covenant I will make with My people on that day, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
For those that actually want to learn and do not hang their head on being Catholic or being Protestant, Here is a study of the issues.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/roman_catholicism/
And yet there were more added to the body called Scripture:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," (Luke 24:44-45)
Thanks be to God.
No, once again you were supposed to be refuting by not that the deutercanonical books were not included in the Protestant Bible (KJV) but that "This [66 book canon] IS the scriptures used by the Protestants who came along 1000 years after the fact." A separate section of books clearly marked as apocrypha simply does not make them Scripture any more then a separate section of books clearly marked. Why not just admit it?
Moreover, the removal was apparently done due to lack of interest in these books and to save money, while today you can easily find Protestant Bibles with the apocrypha, which i have on my PC.
Have you read both the books of Esther and Maccabees ? Can you discern the difference from the scriptures ?
I can indeed tell the difference just from 2Mac 12 alone, and which testifies to later and novel declension in Judaism.
These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good."
"The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background." It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using http://www.onlineocr.net, emp. mine
Smith later said he became interested in religion at about the age of twelve; he participated in church classes and read the Bible. As a teenager, he may have been sympathetic to Methodism.[17] With other family members, Smith also engaged in religious folk magic, not an uncommon practice at the time.[18]
Maybe Elsie has more on Joe's faith prior to his Moronic experience.
It is obedience to the faith once delivered to the saints and endurance until the end that counts. Joseph Smith went out from the Protestant (Presbyterian/Methodist) communities from the Great Awakening and started his own religion. Luther also left the faith he believed, the Catholic Church, and started his own religion. He was excommunicated and never repented and returned.
At which point neither was what they were before, which is my point.
Perhaps. Did the people heed prophets of God only if and because the magisterial powers affirmed them, or sometimes in dissent from them?
Did the people hold the OT Scriptures, which the Lord and disciples alike invoked, to be authoritative because the magisterial powers had formally declared them to be so?
Did councils affirm a body of books to be of God before or after they largely became established as such by the consensus of the people, especially manifest Godly men, who heard and or read them?
Somehow even most of what we call Scripture evidently became established as being so before there was any magisterial definition of them.
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," (Luke 24:44-45)
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2)
"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)
"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23)
And still at THIS time...
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/12/healing-science-belief-placebo/
I have no more than what can be found on the web. Though I'd suspect that much information has been stored away that SHOULD be on the web.
Just WHAT in his early days influenced him later is debatable; but the EFFECTS of that info is clearly found in the extant documents that are available today.
Why mess around with reformation when Moroni has delivered RESTORATION to the world!!!
Which does not mean any outside the Scriptures must be .
The holydays of Purim and Hannkah developed later.
Much later for the latter, spelled "Hanukkah," 165 BC - usually in December.
Both have books about them in the Bible.
Which presumes what needs to be proved, that 2Mac is Scripture, which the very Jews whose history you invoke as reason to canonize this book, rejects it Scripture. Enoch predicts the 2nd coming, but which does not make it Scripture either.
Both of those books commemorate the deliverance of the Jewsh people.
(and and rededication of the Temple) led by Judas Maccabeus, third son of Mattathias the Hasmonean, whose successors established the Hasmonean high priesthood dynasty. But which were not a valid high priesthood due to invalid lineage, (Genesis 49:10) being not of the lineage of David, as the .Zadoks were, and their line ended up opening the door to the Roman conquest. Their control ended when Herod eliminated every male in the Hasmonean line. (Though The Herodian Dynasty had Hasmonean blood thru two sons and two daughters. through Mariamne.)
Due to the unpopularity of its founders, Hanukkah itself came to be largely ignored within a few decades after its origins. Then when Rome’s crushing power began to be felt in Palestine, the people recognized in Hanukkah a message of hope that new Maccabees would rise and independence would be restored. - http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-hasmonean-dynasty/2/
Thus there is a profound difference btwn Biblical holy-days and Hanukkah, Maccabees is good for history. yet i believe some books Rome herself considers apocrypha can contain events of Jewish history, but which does not make these books Scripture.
Only one of those books makes mention of the God of Israel.
But dependence upon whom (fast and cry to whom?) and His working is manifestly implicitly evident.
Both of those holydays are celebrated in Jewish religious life to this day.
Came to be, unlike Biblical ones, and a record of history which does not warrant it being Scripture. Also of contrast, major Jewish holidays are those when all forms of work are forbidden, and that feature traditional holiday meals, kiddush, holiday candle-lighting, etc. Only biblical holidays fit these criteria, while Chanukah'Hanukkah is a relatively minor Jewish holiday, as indicated by the lack of religious restrictions on work other than a few minutes after lighting the candles. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah#Symbolic_importance
Only one of those holydays is specified in any of the books of the New Testament.
Which testifies to it not being as Biblical festivals in Biblical books. Christ may have taken advantage of the feast to preach, as we have done with religious and secular events by God's grace, but which simply does not mean the record it is must be Scripture.
Thus Maccabees is good book on history but is not wholly inspired Scripture. and clearly teaches error, even as per Catholicism in inferring there is hope for those who were executed in battle due to idolatry.
HE kept Passover; too.
That was His Last Supper.
I highly doubt He'd recognize Christianty's Communion as anything at all resembling the meal HE shared with his disciples.
So then, truth is tested with the scriptures and tradition.
Gods word NEVER changes. It’s interpretation (related to tradition) does change.
I will grant you testing traditions with scripture. and I remind you that you test scripture with scripture. Meaning we don’t pull out just one verse for a position.
Getting to basics, something we should all agree with, that ALL glory and honor belong to God?
Going up to preach to the people gathered at a feast of the Jews does not mean He religiously observed it, but while He that He recognized the historical event by going up to it to teach (the Lord would have likely preached at the anniversary celebrations of Israel becoming a state in 1948 if He had come in this era), that no more makes a book that recorded it to be Scripture than it does other historical accounts. The Megillat Antiochus not only recounts the Maccabean story of Hanukkah and the history of the victory of the Hasmoneans) over the Seleucid Empire, but also the legend of the lamps.
Opinions vary on this composition, yet Megillat Antiochus was read in the Italian synagogues on Hanukkah during the Middle Ages, just as the Book of Esther is read on Purim. But which does not make it Scripture.
It is not a movie. Of course it is scripture.
There is no "of course," with even the Jews themselves rejecting it as Scripture (so Caths blame Prots). Your argument is with them.
And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
So now the mention of a notable location makes observing a feast obligatory, and or makes a book which describes said event to be Scripture, though even the people who celebrate the event do not recognize it was being so, and it teaches a novel practice nowhere else examples and sanctioned in Scripture? Sorry, your argument is just typical Catholic overreach in order to defend your Tradition.
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.