[razorbak]

I don't speak for Luther nor does he speak for me. I am not a Lutheran any more than I am a papist. The Protestant movement began because the Roman Catholic church had transformed its brand of "Christianity" into a complex apostate monstrosity that bore no resemblance to the simple faith of the early church.

The RCC is still morphing today, and will continue to do so because it has no fixed standard by which to judge itself. So doctrines like Mary's ascent into heaven, and her sinlessness, taught nowhere in Scripture, will continue to become dogmas of the RCC. Apparitions in places like Fatima will even add their influence to this potpourri. And loyal Catholics will continue to believe what they are told to believe, and traipse all over the world to kiss the toes of a graven image, or seek a miracle from a such things as a Cinammon bun in the shape of Mother Teresa's face. This despite the warning of the Apostle Paul,

Gal.1: 6 "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

The message of the apparition at Fatima urges Catholics, “Pray the Rosary every day in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary to obtain peace in the world . . . for she alone can save it.” And, "Jesus wishes to establish devotion to my Immaculate Heart in the world. I promise salvation to those who embrace it." Since this phenomenon commands its followers to do what is unscriptural, then it is a "doctrine of demons" that the Apostle Paul warned us would become common during the "last days."

1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons."

Another of these demonic doctrines promoted by the RCC is the enforcment of celibacy [1 Timothy 4:3], despite the fact that the Bible clearly states,

3:1 "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, [NOTE] the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence
5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);
6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."


[Protestants who stray from Scripture, and many have, are no better or worse than the RCC, I might add.]

As for my "right" to interpret Scripture that you ridicule, some of my Hugenot ancestors paid a far higher price than I have had to pay for my convictions, but I am as willing to die for and by what I believe as they were. Unlike most Americans today, I am aware of the fact that the three most popular books in America during the Revolutionary War [another "protest"] were the KJV Bible, Pilgrim's Progress [written by an English Baptist minister], and Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and that much of the bloody history of Europe from the 1500s on, originated from the attempt by the Roman church, to force its dogma on unwilling Protestants with the rack or at the edge of the sword.

Maybe the reason for Luther's disrespect for the pope comes from the fact that the pope broke his promise of safety for Luther saying, "One does not have to keep promises to a heretic," and the fact that the Roman church, through their lacky, Charles V, launched a war to exterminate him and his followers. Not long before the Christian wars spread to France: a series of violent clashes erupted which lasted 36 years, from 1562 to 1598. One of the most infamous incidents of this Christian war was the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in which thousands of unsuspecting Huguenots were massacred in 1572. Spanish power was at it's height and Spain's leader, King Phillip II, pledged to conquer the Protestant heretics in England and convert them to the Church of Rome. We all know what happened to the Spanish Armada. Pope Pius IX promulgated the infamous Syllabus of Errors, aimed primarily at America, which condemned such "radical" notions as freedom of religion. Fortunately Rome never had the power to enforce its will in America the way that it once did in Europe.

On a human level, I have great respect for the current pope's part, along with Ronald Reagan and Lech Walesa, in helping the rotten structure of communism to collapse in the Soviet Union. But I have no need or desire to follow his unscriptural devotion to Mary, or hear him lecture the U.S. against the death penalty or taking military action against Iraq and Islamic terrorists. He needs to concentrate on purging the church from its pedophile priests before he lectures the rest of the world. He may desire to do such purging, but his efforts thus far have been unimpressive to most observers.

[TheCrusader]

"The RCC is still morphing today, and will continue to do so because it has no fixed standard by which to judge itself. So doctrines like Mary's ascent into heaven, and her sinlessness, taught nowhere in Scripture, will continue to become dogmas of the RCC."

I take it then that you are a fundamentalist, a new-age form of "Christianity" that was born in the 20th century. But I remind you that for 1,500 years before the Protestant revolt Christianity had as it human head the Bishop of Rome. God would not ascend into Heaven and leave His world-wide Church without structure, government, and leadership. As Heaven itself is a monarchy, (the "Kingdom", as Christ called it), with an heirarchical structure as we see with the "elders in Heaven", (Revelation), and the ascending powers of the various groupings of angels, (Seraphim, Cherubim, Dominations, Virtures, Arch Angels, etc). Jesus also tells us there will be some greater than others in Heaven, (He told the Apostles that those who serve others are greater in the Kingdom of heaven, etc. Christ designed all things to be ordered, including His Church, which needs a visible human head and an heirarchical government.

You cannot get around this fact when you read the Book of Acts and see a Council in Jerusalem, you read about Bishops, presbyters, meaning priest). We also read about Deacons, Church elders. We see Paul traveling hundreds of miles to attend the coucil in Jerusalem. We see debate over doctrine, and we see Peter "speaking and silencing the whole crowd". And we see the people bringing all their belongings to the Church leadership for general disbursal in Acts. Peter was the first to confess that Jesus was the Son of God, and Jesus told him he was inspired by God, (Mathew 16:). Again and again we see Peter being given the leadership, as with the Keys to the Kingdom, (Mathew 16), Peter alone being given the vision that all men are saved, (Acts 10:34), Peter being allowed by Jesus to walk on water, Peter being instructed by Jesus, "Feed my lambs, feed my flock", the Apostles being referred to as "Peter and the eleven", Peter being allowed by the swifter John to enter the empty Tomb first, always it was Peter.

Clement, (mentioned by Paul in Scripture), was the fourth Bishop of Rome. His own epistles, still extant, reveal that he give pastoral advice and leadership to the various Churches in the First Century who were falling away from traditional doctrine, and who had their own Bishops. Only a "bishop of bishops" could have sent such correctional letters to provinces that already had their own bishops. This is precisely why it is a deadly error to be a "bible only" Christian. The Bible is truly inspired by God, but it by no means contains the whole of Christianity. The Bible itself tells us that, (John 20:30 and John 21:25).

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

As for your continual attacks against "Mary, the mother of Jesus", it might just be advisable to stop attacking her purity. She was, after all, the human arc of our Saviour. Do you really believe it pleases Jesus in any way when His own mother is spoken of as a sinner? Do you imagine Him smiling when you say such things? Mary was not the only woman born without sin in the Bible. Eve was the first to have this distinction. And as Eve said "yes" to Satan and brought sin into the world, Mary said "yes" to the angel and brought Salvation into the world. The Bible that you profess to know and love says that "all generations shall call me, (Mary), blessed", (Luke 1:48). I call her blessed, you call her a sinner. Elizabeth exclaimed whe she saw Mary: "BLESSED are you among women,-Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me"? (Luke 1:42-3).

And let's not forget that Mary was indeed sinless. For the Son of God could not be born of anything impure. Mary was the only person in the Scripture, (that you profess to know and trust), who declared that she was saved before Jesus the Saviour was even born. My spirit rejoices in God my savior" <(Luke 1:47). Mary was already saved by God before the Saviour was born, died and was resurrected. That is, before Redemption, Mary was saved. This is because Mary was born without that stain of sin, and remained pure.