Tell me what you know about the life and ministry of Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)? Does he fit your stereo-type?
Stereotypes dissolve when faced with concrete examples to the contrary, do they not?
Posted on 07/05/2002 10:14:23 AM PDT by Polycarp
The scenario:
You've decided to help out on a confirmation retreat at your parish.You're a small group leader with five candidates in your group. The youth are responding well until the time comes to go to confession. One of the girls in your group, Michelle, has an objection to going to confession.
Her Evangelical boyfriend has apparently convinced her she has no need of a priest to confess her sins. "Why can't I confess my sins directly to God?" Michelle protests.
Evidently, Michelle was waiting for this opportunity to make her stand, because she immediately reels off five Scripture passages that she had no doubt memorized for the occasion.
"Isaiah 43:25 says, 'I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.' It's God who forgives sins," she confidently proclaims. You notice she is quoting from the King James Bible.
"Further, Hebrews 3:1 and 7:22-27 tell us Jesus is our one and only true High Priest and that there are not many priests, but one in the New Testament. The Bible makes it clear in 1 John 2:2 that Jesus 'is the propitiation for our sins,' and not some priest, 'and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world'. And how can we Catholics claim priests act in the role of mediator in confession when 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us, 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'?"
Your response:
You begin by complimenting Michelle on her knowledge of Scripture, and encourage the rest of your group to imitate her in the practice of memorizing Sacred Scripture. You thank her for both her honesty and for bringing up these objections to confession. In answering them, these objections can serve to deepen our understanding of the One, True Faith established by Jesus Christ.
Step One: After thanking Michelle once again for bringing up Isaiah 43:25, which teaches us that it is, in fact, God Who forgives our sins, you ask another member of the group, Mark, to read Leviticus 19:20-22:"If a man lies carnally with a woman . . . they shall not be put to death . . . but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him . . . before the Lord for his sin which he has committed, and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him."
Remember, Isaiah 43:25 is an Old Testament passage. It declares that God forgives our sins. On that point all Christians agree. However, here in Leviticus, also in the Old Testament, the priest has been given the ministry of reconciliation. He mediates God's forgiveness to the sinner. Obviously, this does not take away from the fact that it is God Who does the forgiving. God is the efficient, or ultimate, cause of forgiveness. The priest is the instrumental cause
Michelle immediately objects. "But Jesus is our priest and mediator in the New Testament."
You respond, "We'll get to that in a minute, Michelle, but first I want to make sure everyone understands what we're saying." Now, in order to keep this from becoming a confrontation between yourself and Michelle, you turn to the rest of the group and say, "God indeed forgives us our sins, as Isaiah 43:25 teaches. However, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of using priests to mediate that forgiveness to the world as Leviticus 19:20-22 teaches. Right?"
You notice Michelle responds affirmatively with the others, so you quickly move ahead.
Step Two:
"Michelle brought up another excellent point we need to address. How can we Catholics have priests to forgive our sins, when Hebrews 3:1 says Jesus is the apostle and High Priest of our confession? And what about Hebrews 7:22-27?" At this point, you ask another member of your small group, Kendra, to read the text.
"This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever . . . For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself."
At this point, you see all five of your group members absorbed in thought. Jennifer suddenly pipes up and says, "How do we answer that one? It seems that Jesus is our only priest."
To answer, you call on Andrea to read 1 Peter 2:5, 9.
"And like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people . . ."
If Jesus is the one and only priest in the New Testament in the strict sense that Protestants believe, then we have a contradiction in Sacred Scripture, because 1 Peter teaches that all believers are members of a holy priesthood. The key to clearing up this difficulty is in understanding the nature of the Body of Christ. Believers do not take away from Christ's unique Priesthood, rather, as members of His Body, we establish His Priesthood on earth. We are His hands and feet.Michelle jumps in, "That doesn't say there's any special priesthood we have to go to in order to have our mortal sins forgiven. That text says we're all priests.
"We'll get to that," you assure her, "but we are making progress. A moment ago we couldn't see how anyone could be a priest in the New Testament other than Christ, and now we see how all believers are priests.
"Before we move on to demonstrate a special priesthood, can we all see how Christ being the true High Priest does not eliminate the possibility of there being many priests? We are priests as believers inasmuch as we participate in the one priesthood of Christ, as members of His Body."At this point you clear up the difficulty of 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Yes, Jesus is the one mediator between God and men. However, Christians are also called to be mediators in Him. When we intercede for one another or share the gospel with someone, we act as mediators of God's love and grace in the one true Mediator, Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:1-7, 4:16, Rom. 10:9-14).
Now what about 1 John 2:2? "He is the expiation [propitiation] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." How can we demonstrate from Scripture the existence of a priesthood with the power to forgive sins, within the universal priesthood of all believers?
Step Three:
Now show the context of 1 Peter 2:5, 9. When St. Peter teaches us about the universal priesthood of all believers, he refers to Exodus 19:6 where God speaks of ancient Israel as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," a reference to the universal priesthood in the Old Testament "church." But this did not preclude the existence of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods within that universal priesthood (cf. Ex. 28 and Num. 3:1-12).
In an analogous way, we have a universal "royal priesthood" in the New Testament, but we also have an ordained clergy who have priestly authority given to them by Christ to carry out His ministry of reconciliation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17-21, John 20:21-23, James 5:16). Michelle once again protests. "But you still haven't answered the Scripture I quoted earlier. 1 John 2:2 says Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, not a priest. And in Mark 2:5-10, Jesus forgives the sins of a paralytic. When the scribes object to that and call it blasphemy, Jesus says: ' "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth," he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."' Scripture is clear. Jesus is the One we go to for forgiveness. Where does the Bible say there's a priesthood with the authority to forgive sins
Step Four:
Now ask Mark to read John 20:21-23 to the group: "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.' "
"What does this text say to you?" you ask. Andrea speaks up: "I think it says Jesus gave His authority to forgive sins to His disciples, which we read about in Mark 2." The rest of the group agrees, except for Michelle, who had been listening attentively, but is now studying the text intensely.
You point out the setting: Jesus has risen from the dead and is about to ascend to the Father. In verse 21, Jesus says, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." What did the Father send Jesus to do? He came to be the one true mediator between God and men: proclaiming the gospel (cf. Luke 4:16-21), reigning supreme as King of kings and Lord of lords (cf. Rev. 19:16), and especially, redeeming the world through the forgiveness of sins (cf. 1 Peter 2:21-25, Mark 2:5-10). So this is what Christ is sending the apostles to do in His name: To proclaim the gospel with His authority (cf. Matt. 18:15-17), to govern the Church in His stead (cf. Luke 22:29-30), and to sanctify the Church through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist (cf. John 6:54, 1 Cor. 11:24-29) and confession.
Christ, the High Priest of the New Covenant, ordained the apostles to continue His priestly mission. In John 20:22-23, Jesus then emphasizes this essential part of the priestly ministry of the apostles: forgiving men's sins in the name of Christ. "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." This is confession. The only way the apostles can either forgive or retain sins is by first hearing those sins confessed, and then making a judgement as to whether or not the penitent should be absolved.
"You mean it's up to the priest to decide whether or not I'm going to be forgiven?" Michelle queries indignantly.
"Yes, Michelle. That's what the Bible teaches here in John 20.
"Let's say a woman confesses adultery," you continue. "When the priest asks her if she's sorry for her sin and resolved to turn away from it, she says she's not. The priest would then be bound to 'retain' her sins. One has to be truly sorry for his or her sins in order to be forgiven." "What if she lies to the priest and says she's sorry when she's not, and then the priest absolves her?" Jennifer asks. "Will she be forgiven?" "No," you respond. "The sacrament does not take effect unless the penitent is truly sorry for his or her sins. In fact, lying in confession is another serious sin, called the sin of sacrilege.
Step Five:
You notice Michelle is much less defensive when she asks her next question. "Do we see any examples of the apostles or church elders actually forgiving sins?"
You have Andrea read 2 Corinthians 2:10: "Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ."
Actually, a better translation of the phrase "in the presence of Christ" is "in the person of Christ." The Greek word in the passage is prosopon. The Latin word persona comes from this word. The Greek prefix pro translates to Latin as per. The Greek sopon becomes sona in Latin. Interestingly, the King James Bible renders the better translation of "person."
You read James 5:14-16 aloud: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."
You point out Scripture teaches us we must go to the "elders," not just anyone, to receive this "anointing" and the forgiveness of our sins.Michelle objects. "In verse 16 it says to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another. James is just encouraging us to confess our sins to a close friend so we can help one another to overcome our faults."
You respond, "We have to examine the context of Scripture in order to understand it properly. There are two reasons we know St. James is not saying we should confess our sins to just anyone. First, he's just told us to go to the elder, or priest, in verse 14. Then, verse 16 begins with the word "therefore." That word is a conjunction that connects verse 16 back to verses 14 and 15. It's the elder to whom St. James is telling us to confess our sins.
Step Six:
At this point, there's a break and you decide to take Michelle outside for a little one on one. You ask her, "Well, what do you think?"She replies thoughtfully, "I have to admit, John 20:21-23 and all the rest of the verses you pointed out make it awfully clear. But it's so hard to confess your sins to a man."
"Yep, I agree," you say. "But I guarantee you, you will walk out of that confessional feeling like you're walking on air. And remember, when the priest says, 'I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,' there are two people speaking at the same time: the priest, and Jesus Himself, Who loves you more than words could ever say."
After the break, it's time for confession. You're watching for Michelle. As soon as she comes out of the confessional, she looks right at you with a bright, beaming smile. As she approaches, you tease, "Was I right?"
The smile never leaves her face as she slaps you a high five and walks toward the chapel to pray.
Reprinted with permission from Envoy Magazine, www.envoymagazine.com
I have no intent to deny that the Bible was perserved and hand copied by by the RC church for centuries. The question we are discussing goes beyond that .
The first hand-written English language manuscripts of the Bible were produced in 1380's AD by Oxford theologian John Wycliff (Wycliffe). Curiously, he was also the inventor of bifocal eyeglasses. Wycliff spent many of his years arguing against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. Though he died a nonviolent death, the Pope was so infuriated by his teachings that 44 years after Wycliff had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!
Gutenburg invented the printing press in the 1450's, and the first book to ever be printed was the Bible. It was, however, in Latin rather than English. With the onset of the Reformation in the early 1500's, the first printings of the Bible in the English language were produced...illegally and at great personal risk of those involved.
Martin Luther declared his intolerance with the Roman Curch's corruption on Halloween in 1517, by nailing 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Door. Luther, who would be exiled in the months following the Diet of Worms Council in 1521 that was designed to martyr him, would translate the New Testament into German from Erasmus' Greek/Latin New Testament and publish it in September of 1522. Simultaneously, William Tyndale would become burdened to translate that same Erasmus text into English. It could not, however, be done in England.
Tyndale showed up on Luther's doorstep in 1525, and by year's end had translated the New Testament into English. Tyndale was fluent in eight languages and is considered by many to be the primary architect of today's English language. Already hunted because of the rumor spread abroad that such a project was underway, inquisitors and bounty hunters were on Tyndale's trail to abort the effort. God foiled their plans, and in 1525/6 Tyndale printed the first English New Testament. They were burned as soon as the Bishop could confiscate them, but copies trickled through and actually ended up in the bedroom of King Henry VIII. The more the King and Bishop resisted its distribution, the more fascinated the public at large became. The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of Tyndale's forbidden books.
Having God's Word available to the public in the language of the common man, English, would have meant disaster to the church. No longer would they control access to the scriptures. If people were able to read the Bible in their own tongue, the church's income and power would crumble. They could not possibly continue to get away with selling indulgences (the forgiveness of sins) or selling the release of loved ones from a church-manufactured "Purgatory". People would begin to challenge the church's authority if the church were exposed as frauds and thieves. The contradictions between what God's Word said, and what the priests taught, would open the public's eyes and the truth would set them free from the grip of fear that the institutional church held. Salvation through faith, not works or donations, would be understood. The need for priests would vanish through the priesthood of all believers. The veneration of church-cannonized Saints and Mary would be called into question. The availablity of the scriptures in English was the biggest threat imaginable to the wicked church. Neither side would give up without a fight.
The Tyndale New Testament was the first ever printed in the English language. Its first printing occurred in 1525/6, but only one complete copy of the first printing exists. Any Edition printed before 1570 is very rare and valuable, particularly pre-1540 editions and fragments. Tyndale's flight was an inspiration to freedom-loving Englishmen who drew courage from the 11 years that he was hunted. Books and Bibles flowed into England in bales of cotton and sacks of flour. In the end, Tyndale was caught: betrayed by an Englishman that he had befriended. Tyndale was incarcerated for 500 days before he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536.
The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540's...and into the 1550's. The reign of Queen Mary (a.k.a. "Bloody Mary") was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was possessed in her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John Rogers ("Thomas Matthew") and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the "crime" of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again.
In the 1550's, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to the reformer refugees and was one of only a few safe havens for a desperate people. Many of them met in Geneva, led by Myles Coverdale and John Foxe (publisher of the famous Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which is to this day the only exhaustive reference work on the persecution and martyrdom of Early Christians and Protestants from the first century up to the mid-16th century), as well as Thomas Sampson and William Whittingham. There, with the protection of John Calvin and John Knox, the Church of Geneva determined to produce a Bible that would educate their families while they continued in exile.
The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis desribing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as "Breeches" (an antiquated form of "Britches"), some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.
The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible". William Shakespeare quotes thousands of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible.
By the 1580's, the Roman Catholic Church saw that it had lost the battle to supress the will of God: that His Holy Word be available in the English language. In 1582, the Church of Rome surrendered their fight for "Latin only" and decided that if the Bible was to be available in English, they would at least have an official Roman Catholic English translation. And so, using the Latin Vulgate as a source text, they went on to publish an English Bible with all the distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had revealed and warned of 75 years earlier. Because it was translated at the Roman Catholic College in the city of Rheims, it was known as the Rheims ( or Rhemes) New Testament. The Old Testament was translated by the Church of Rome in 1609 at the College in the city of Doway (also spelled Douay and Douai). The combined product is commonly refered to as the "Doway/Rheims" Version.
The ability of the average man to read for himself the word of God was bought with the blood of the Reformers..never forget that!
Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria
He had taken a wife in 1522, although he did not legally marry her until two years later. (118:512)
With an unparalleled cynicism, Zwingli himself acknowledges his immoral conduct, even with a public prostitute (22) . . . In the year 1522 he wrote to his immediate relatives:
If you hear it said that I sin through pride, gluttony, and unchastity, believe it; for unfortunately I am enslaved to these and other vices (23).
Jesus and the Apostles believed in sola scriptuira, The reformation returned the right to the people.Praise God!
Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria
I think it IS on topic. You said "The REFORMATION returned the Bible to the people from whom the church had hidden it." You should say the "Reformers" returned the Bible to the people. So I think it is fair game to talk about them. Why don't you want to talk about them? These are the guys that returned the bible to you. Don't you admire them?
Luther on women: Women must be used either for marriage or for whoredom. (110:124/40)
If women breed themselves sick and eventually to death, that does no harm; let them breed themselves to death; that is what they are for. (110:304/41)
Would you like me to whoop out some of the stuff your early popes said and did? I can. What Luther said or did pales when compaired to what your popes said and did. I could keep score too! :)
BigMack
Oh I understand the sword cuts both ways. Go ahead and whip that stuff out. My belief is that no matter how venal and evil certain popes were they were prevented from teaching error in faith or morals by the power of Holy Spirit. Since NC's do not believe that a man can be infallible it seems that you would at least expect an above-average level of holiness from the Reformers. It would help to support their stupendous claims of being able to restore the Church to to purity and holiness. They failed. We reformed our own church at the Council of Trent and Reformers wailed about the bitter fruits of their efforts as their churches split, and split and split again and again even during thier lifetimes.
Tell me what you know about the life and ministry of Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)? Does he fit your stereo-type?
Stereotypes dissolve when faced with concrete examples to the contrary, do they not?
Why ? If the reformers rejected the "infallible " sinful Popes .....why would they expect perfection from those God chose to reform His Church after all Peter denied Christ..Thomas doubted..etc....
We believe there is non righteous no not one. We do not have demi gods ,we have weak sinful men such as we are...saved by the grace of God not their works (lest any man boast:>)
Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Pope Julius II (I think he was pope then) not one of them was the right man for the job of reforming the church. All of them had screwed up personalities. But here's the difference, the Holy Spirit does not prevent a bad pope from being chosen, but he does prevent a bad pope from teaching error on matters of docterine. And no pope and no Counsel ever taught sola scriptura, private judgement, sola fide. And NO counsel ever denied the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Never.
If the Reformers had agitated to get vernacular translations of the bible to the populace, reform the abuse of indulgences, simplify practices that had been abused, and reigned in the powers of the clergy... even if it had taken another 100 years.. It would be worth it to avoid what happened. But they were rebellious and hate filled and they began to DEFORM the teachings that were central to the very heart of the faith handed down from the apostles.
So the works of Wyclif were condemned. Why? Because like the reformers who came after him he was a heretic. Among other things he denied the Real Presence! The Catholic Church had a duty to condem his works. Every denomination has a duty to do that, even today if their members are being lead into heresy. They had no right to burn his works. NONE! And he had a right to translate the bible and speak his mind. But back then everybody burned everybody's works and then they burned bodies. Read those quotes, those reformers were no better and not one bit more tolerant.
Theresa hind sight is 20/20
Think about it ..do you REALLY think those changes would have occurred? How long in this multi media age have activist RC folks tried to get a coordinated response to the abuse issue
The leaders speak with a sympathetic voice and nothing changes.
The voices would have been silenced (that was the time when they burned heritics) or ignored.
Martin Luther had a revelation he found in scripture..He was moved by the Holy Spirit. As was every one of the men that fought that battle, I really do believe if the reformers had not acted we would still not have direct access to the word of God.
"Theresa hind sight is 20/20 "
Well yes. But there were moderates whose voices were drowned out. Erasmus had a good plan for moral, clerical and teaching reforms. He hated the mechanical Christianity and the clerical hold that was killing the Church. His plan would be implemented by the educated upper classes. It would take time because it was not extreme. Pope Leo was enthused about it. (It was based on what they called the New Learning.) Before that everybody agreed that there was a need for reform but nobody KNEW how to do it. And there was no money for reform. It is a popular misimpression, even back then, that the papacy was rich. It was not.
Then Luther came along and he despised Erasmus because he was an intellectual. He saw no hope for top down reform, and you know the rest of the story. It is so complex! But it is not like efforts were not being made. It's that everybody on both sides went to such terrible extremes. It became a war of all against all because the only thing everybody had in common was the Catholic faith. Without that common bond society disintegrated.
"Think about it ..do you REALLY think those changes would have occurred?"
I think there was a chance. Erasmus did too, until Luther came along. IMHO no matter how long it took it would have been better than what happened. In the meantime the Lord would forgive the masses for their ignorance and those who had neglected their spiritual welfare would pay an eternal price.
"How long in this multi media age have activist RC folks tried to get a coordinated response to the abuse issue."
Oh I agree! The victims had to resort to the law. Pitiful!! But is schism the answer? Is not having bishops and priests at all the answer? Most of us want them regardless of the pitfalls!!And those who are totally fed up can leave or agitate for change.
"The leaders speak with a sympathetic voice and nothing changes. The voices would have been silenced (that was the time when they burned heretics) or ignored."
Yes BUT BOTH sides were intolerant. When moderates on either side spoke out they risked their lives! Both sides burned heretics and also both sides burned witches. Even today the Wiccans (ugh) are angry about that. And really it just shows how nobody had the kind of rights then that we have now. Who in modern America would say that Wiccans don't have a right to stand in a circle in their black spandex Fruit of the Looms and worship the moon if they want to? They have that right. But back then they were tortured and burned alive. (And how many really were witches?) It was a different time. I am glad I did not live in that era.
"Martin Luther had a revelation he found in scripture. He was moved by the Holy Spirit. As was every one of the men that fought that battle, I really do believe if the reformers had not acted we would still not have direct access to the word of God."
That's a glorious ideal. I have em too. But in my reading I have gotten more realistic. There was one last effort at reunion and both sides were able to agree on the doctrine of justification but talks broke down on the issue of the Real Presence. In my reading I learned That the Church had long before that given up on trying to control access to the bible. The printing press took care of that. This is just my theory, but if the Reformers had been orthodox then there would have been less attempts to control the distribution of the bible. But by that time they were so angry and fed up they lost faith. It was not all their fault by any means.
Then again if not them, others would have found in the bible all the things that so many different people find there. It is really nothing new, from the day Jesus ascended to heaven, heresy (insert your definition of heresy here ;O>) has been with us. Compromise is almost impossible. But one day we will all be one. Won't that be heaven? Literally???? ;O>
Now back to our regularly scheduled food fight!!! Charge!!!!! Viva il poppa!!!!! ;O>
Rome lived to regret the day they did not work with Luther..Luther opened the door..and lots of folks walked out.
Lots of folks here rail at Sola scriptura..they mock and laugh..
But we KNOW that is the inspired word of God and we know that men can error .
You have heard the story that the way the feds are trained to find counterfeit money is to have them learn what the real article looks like.
In a similar way, by holding all the teachings of man to the geniune we can tell if a teaching is true or not
God gave us His word so we would know Him and so we would have a measuring rod to hold up all future revelation too. Without it we would be easily deceived (look at the cults that deny it's truth questioning the accuracy of the translation). That is the only way they can justify their beliefs...cause the word calls them liars.
I will sometimes ask my husband why he believes such and such..he has no answer (he was rasied at a time that bibles were not read at all by RC's ...he still never reads it) He has no answer!
Now Theresa that is wht the JW's love to come to the home of RC's..so many (not all) have never read the Bible through..they have no sense of the themes or "power points" of the word....so the cult moves in and fills in the gaps with altered scripture. Those that do not read it do not know the real from the fake..so they buy the fake
Everyone that calls the name of Christ should know for themselves what the word of God says..not second hand or third hand..THEN they are able to give a reason for the hope they have. Good old sola scriptura Peter knew that :>)
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
So I wander around asking Christians to read the Bible through....find a plan and read it.....let it live in your heart....have a reason for the hope you have. Hide it in your hert so when an error is taught you "hear it" right away.
God gave us His word to protect us..from error.....it makes us run (not walk ) from false teachings Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; . The gospel is what lets us walk with spiritual confidence..
So I do go on Theresa..we have differences in doctrinal positions..I happen to think the word of God does not support much of the tradition of the church . That was what Luther saw happening and he wanted to correct it. But I think we are still "family"
Sola Scriptura simply means that if what is taught is contrary to scripture and is contrary to the principles taught and contrary to the character of God as revealed in it..it is not truth..
Yeah Lutheranism is close, and you know that we signed an agreement about justification was it about five years ago? Look how long that took!!! And I agree Luther did not really want a spilt. But that temper. He called the pope a snake, a dog, a pig, the anti-Christ. He said We should wash our hands in the blood of the paptists. (Something like that.) He had lewd pictures of the pope drawn and circulated them. That is more than frustration. It is rebellion. But maybe that was after he saw no hope anyway. Like I said, it's complex you really have to know your history.
"Rome lived to regret the day they did not work with Luther..Luther opened the door..and lots of folks walked out."
Work with him on what? No Purgatory? Private judgement? Saying marriage is NOT a sacrament? total Iconoclasim? There was just no way on those things. It was about MORE than having bibles in the vernacular and justification. (Which I think I agree with.)
Even TODAY Rome does not given in to people who deny basic docterines. Hans Kuhn, Charles Curran and others may not teach in Catholic universities. The curia have talks with them and they try very hard to come to terms. If they can't they don't excommunicate him but they let it be known that his teachings are in error. That was exactly we got the new Catechism. To counteract the modernist theologians. Even St. Thomas Aquinas works were condemned at one time!! But he was obedient and loyal and eventually his works were accepted. Obedience is a SIGN of the rightness of the direction you are going in.
The powers that be chose to try to hide the "problem " instead of cleaning up a bit..some things never change:>)
I am not beating the drum for any specific church here... I am asking Christians to read the bible. Know the word of God for your self..
It is from the introduction to the original KJV
It expresses my heart
The Praise Of The Holy Scriptures
But now what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. John 5:39. Isaiah 8:20. They are commended that searched and studied them. Acts 17:11 and 8:28,29. They are reproved that were unskillful in them, or slow to believe them. Matthew 22:29 and Luke 24:25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2 Timothy 3:15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us, if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege; Tolle, lege, Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures, (for unto them was the direction) it was said unto S. Augustine by a supernatural voice. Whatsoever is in the Scriptures, believe me, saith the same S. Augustine, is high and divine; there is verily truth, and a doctrine most fit for the refreshing and renewing of men’s minds, and truly so tempered, that every one may draw from thence that which is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with a devout and pious mind, as true Religion requireth. Thus S. Augustine. And S. Jerome: Ana scripturas, & amabit te sapientia &c. Love the Scriptures, and wisdom will love thee.
Well I see Sola Scriptura as a most worthy desire to be as close to the teaching of the apostles as possible. That is a desire we are supposed to have. If I ever laughed at that desire, I was wrong.
"God gave us His word so we would know Him and so we would have a measuring rod to hold up all future revelation too. it we would be easily deceived (look at the cults that deny it's truth questioning the accuracy of the translation). That is the only way they can justify their beliefs...cause the word calls them liars."
We agree here. I was almost deceived myself in my younger days. (New Age) I had no excuse because I had a good religious education and should have known better. So think of people who are really deficient in their knowledge.
"Now Theresa that is wht the JW's love to come to the home of RC's..so many (not all) have never read the Bible through..so the cult moves in and fills in the gaps with altered scripture. Those that do not read it do not know the real from the fake..so they buy the fake."
Say it sister!! Good point.
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.