 |
SO... Luther and Erasmus were best buddies ???
The other threads were SPAM, this is WURST!
Posted on 04/05/2003 3:18:00 PM PST by Commander8
QUESTION: Wasn't Erasmus, whose work led to the Textus Receptus and ultimately the King James Bible, really a Roman Catholic? Doesn't this mean that the King James Bible is just another Roman Catholic Bible?
ANSWER: Erasmus was raised a Catholic and did not openly "leave" the Roman Catholic Religion, but he did not believe in Roman Catholic doctrine either. In fact, his best friends and defenders were the Christians, like the Anabaptists and Martin Luther. Here is proof from researcher Gail Riplinger.
(Excerpt) Read more at chick.com ...
Were I gifted with a knowledge of German I could translate scientific documents with little or no understanding of the science revealed in the text.
Gail Riplinger??? She's an idiot! The woman is an embarrassment to the cause of the KJV only people. Check out the "accrostic algebra" in her book. C'mon Commander8, you need to at least go to scholars who support your position. You Post something from Wilbur N. Pickering (a true scholar who supports KJV only views) and then we have something to talk about, until then, you just hurt your credibility, and do nothing to advance the KJV.
|
SO... Luther and Erasmus were best buddies ???
The other threads were SPAM, this is WURST!
There are major disagreements on this among Protestants.
The issue that would make one a Protestant vs a Catholic is Justification by faith and not works.
Clearly Luther rejected Erasmus on the most fundamental issue of the Christian's understanding of mans relationship with God - to wit man has nothing to do with salvation - man finds himself, in view of scripture if he understands it as Luther did, as totally depraved without the slightest ability to aid his reconciliation to God. But even this revelation is not written on one's heart until the (yes) instant of salvation.
Furthermore he, Luther, claims to be in perfect (my word) agreement with St. Augustine, and diametrically opposed to Erasmus.
Repeating my answer: Erasmus may well have aided in the translation but his understanding of the issue stated above was clearly not Luther's. Luther ridiculed Erasmus on that point. I might be able to provide a perfect translation of a scientific document with little or no understanding of its meaning.
Pickering, has along with Zane Hodge, gone the Majority text route, counting manuscripts as the basis for their acceptance.
As for Riplinger, I think her thesis, that there is a conspiracy against the word of God, is right on the target.
While Erasmus was not a friend of Luther, he was a friend of Melanchthon,
In the summer of 1518 Philip Melanchthon, a gentle young scholar of immense learning, arrived in Wittenberg to teach Greek. He had been-and was to remain-a respected friend of Erasmus and many must have hoped he would bring Luther to a milder opinion of Erasmus....In the following year, 1519, the rapprochement between Erasmus and Luther was probably as close as it could ever be. In January, Melanchthon wrote to Erasmus: Martin Luther is your convinced admirer and would like your approval'(Bondage of the Will, Trans.by James I.Packer and O.R.Johnston, p.26-27)
Being a Protestant does not mean following Luther's view of the will.
Arminius was just as much as a Protestant as Luther was.
Also, Luther differed with Augustine on Justification by faith alone, the crucial issue of the Reformation.
None the less, that's about 2/3 of the battle, and it is something lots of us would like to see some discussion about. Ditto Zane Hodges.
Riplinger has zero credibility, wouldn't know a participle from "a partridge in a pear tree", and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as those others.
You need to keep up on a few things going on around here. Cruise the forum, it is getting a little hot.
A little heads up for you: i FReepmailed wai-ming since this SARS outbreak looks serious. He's healthy, away from Singapore, but concerned about his family.
This KJV stuff is getting old, and we have to get some more "apologetics natured" threads going so that people such as wai-ming can get some questions answered, and maybe some gospel presented.
i don't know how much longer i'm going to be around, "twisted the tiger's tail" a bit yesterday, and expect to suffer the consequences.
True!
Riplinger has zero credibility, wouldn't know a participle from "a partridge in a pear tree", and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as those others.
Well, we will disagree on that.
You need to keep up on a few things going on around here. Cruise the forum, it is getting a little hot.
Anything in particular?
A little heads up for you: i FReepmailed wai-ming since this SARS outbreak looks serious. He's healthy, away from Singapore, but concerned about his family.
Amen! good news! Praise God!
This KJV stuff is getting old, and we have to get some more "apologetics natured" threads going so that people such as wai-ming can get some questions answered, and maybe some gospel presented.
Amen!
i don't know how much longer i'm going to be around, "twisted the tiger's tail" a bit yesterday, and expect to suffer the consequences.
I hope not!
I know people are leaving for other sites due to the belief that there is some unfair censorship going on in the Religious forum.
ANSWER: Erasmus was raised a Catholic and did not openly "leave" the Roman Catholic Religion, but he did not believe in Roman Catholic doctrine either. In fact, his best friends and defenders were the Christians, like the Anabaptists and Martin Luther. Here is proof from researcher Gail Riplinger.
I found the question I answered, and played it back in the above italicized paragraphs - that reply was to commander8. The question I answered was the question stated above. Sorry that I confused you.
You are wrong concerning St. Augustine if Luther, Calvin, Knox, and a host of other Protestants understood Augustine. Again, read BoW before you place Erasmus (or Arminius for that matter) in line with Luther's "protestation".
As for justification by faith Arminius, contrary to Luther, but in line with most today, held that man could provide that faith. But Luther understood that the faith in "justification by faith" came from God - read BoW.
Well, Luther's 'protestation' was over Justification by faith and faith alone.
Arminus held to that view.
He did not hold to the view of Predestination held by the men you listed, that is true.
But Unconditional Predestination was not the core issue of the Reformation, salvation without works was.
I have read Luthers and Erasmus debate on the issue.
I think Erasmus made the better argument.
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.