Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I was specific in my 1194 regarding KJV obfuscatory language. At the same time, I agree that KJV on occasions provides beautiful English language, and is light years better than modern translations.
These (Mat 16:27 and Luke 6:23) both talk about rewards for the saved not being saved. Saved is saved, rewards are rewards.
I thought your point was that rewards are only given on earth, and only salvation in heaven. These two verses clearly tell us that rewards are given to those entering heaven. Salvation IS a reward! There are a lot of implications behind the word 'reward'. It certainly implies that we ARE DOING something that God desires and are subsequently given something. I don't think that the unsaved are rewarded. That is certainly not what I said.
Jesus, knowing the sinful man's heart, knew he violated the 1st commandment 'You shall have no other gods before me,' and pointed out his god. 'Sell all and follow me' The young mans man's unwillingness to follow shows his fallen nature as opposed to his external 'religious' activities. Jesus showed that the rich young ruler had not even begun to keep the commandments. His self-righteousness was only self-deception.
I don't see that connection as primary, although it is a valid interpretation. The point is about leaving ALL for Christ. HE is to be the center of our lives, if we desire to be perfect. Jesus doesn't condemn the man. He LOVES Him, as Mark states. If the man was trying to 'earn' his way to heaven, Jesus would certainly have corrected that idea, as He did with the Pharisees. The point of this story is about discipleship. It is a call to ALL of us to 'leave' everything to follow Christ. To prove this, look to what follows the story:
Peter answered and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that has forsaken houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for my name's sake shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit eternal life. Mat 19:27-29
Note, Jesus is talking about those who give up EVERYTHING for the Kingdom. While the rich young man was good, while he followed the law as Jesus intended us to follow, there was still something missing, something that impeded the man¡¦s search for perfection. His love of money kept God from being first as Jesus relates about the difficulty of entering heaven for the rich people. As a sidebar, note the last sentence those who follow Jesus shall inherit eternal life (faith and love). Another side bar, note that God SHARES His glory with His followers, those He loves, by allowing them to sit upon thrones to judge.
When God looks at the elect He see the righteousness of His son, not the sinful men we are. Think of David having Jonathan's royal robe placed on Him. That robe offered the protection to the son of the King. People seeing it from afar knew he was the kings son.
Lots of quotes from Paul, but nothing from Matthew. Nowhere does Jesus speak of HIS righteousness 'covering' us. He is calling US to be righteous. Understand, He also tells us that we cannot do good alone (John 15). As I have demonstrated with the cookie story, it is perfectly normal to say 'I love you', but not exclude the Creator, the One whom enables us to love in the first place. Thus, when Jesus says we are to obey the commandments, He is not expecting us to obey them WITHOUT God's aid or help. He expects us to pray, to trust in God as little children trust their parents. God will provide. But He also expects a response from us. Thus, we are back again to our cooperation with God. And here is where Paul kicks in. Paul is adamant that WE cannot earn salvation. We cannot do ANYTHING ALONE! Thus, all of the many verses tell us that faith is a gift, faith is from God, works (our own works without God) cannot save. But Paul does not abrogate the Law of Love. He tells us that we MUST love. Our faith must be operative. 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by charity' (Gal 5:6). Faith, which works by charity. Faith without charity is worthless (he says in 1 Cor 13:2). This is exactly what Jesus teaches. Our righteousness must EXCEED the Pharisees. But understand that this is not OUR OWN righteousness, but our righteousness while in Christ! While guided by the Spirit of God, which is the only way we can love and fulfill the new demands that Christ lays upon us - which are not burdensome!
Scripture tells us we have put on Christ, that we are IN Christ. We wear the righteousness of Christ as our robe from the father .
We are IN Christ, but certainly not for the purpose of covering ourselves! We will be judged based on our response to Christ's promptings - our faith working through love. Note, when I say 'our' faith, it is understood that it is God's gift that I am using - just like the child making the cookies. Without 'Dad', I cannot do it. But since God is a sharing God, He enables me to 'do' those things that only God can do alone - LOVE.
Of course Jesus loved him, that has nothing to do with the fact that the man believed he could be saved by his own righteousness. Did jesus run after him? Beg him to stay? Change the plan of salvation so that the young man could be admitted to His fellowship by law keeping?
Again, I don't see where the man is claiming that he has done everything. By saying that 'Jesus loved Him', the Scriptures are saying that the man was not far from the Kingdom. He WAS obeying the Commandments in love of God and neighbor. IF the man was being self-righteous, Jesus would have reacted differently to the man. I ask you to point out ONE verse where Jesus is said to 'love' a hypocritical Pharisee, or invite such a hypocritical Pharisee to follow Him. Jesus could read the hearts of men. He KNEW that the man's heart was in the right place, but there was 'one more thing' to be done. Something that the Apostles HAD done. The man wasn't looking for self-justification!
Can a man without the Holy Spirit love as God loves? What was Gods will in this? Was law keeping sufficient? Was temple attendance sufficient? Was the issue love or was it doing self serving works? Was it that He did not know God at all and he could not recognize Him when he stood in his presence?
Again, we covered this ground already, and I again say no. Without the Spirit, no one can love selflessly. Keeping the law in of itself is NOT sufficient - reconsider reading Mathew 5-7. The Pharisees kept the Law¡ BUT, Jesus expects OUR righteousness (moved by the Spirit) to be higher. Throughout THREE chapters of Scripture, Jesus tells us HOW we can be more righteous than Pharisees. Again, I bring to mind the cookie story and my comment about when YOU say 'I love you' to your children. Are you excluding God? We PRESUME we can BE righteous ONLY because of Christ's Spirit within us. If we are obeying the Commandments out of love, we KNOW the Spirit is within us, because we can't do it alone.
I wrote : How can a rich man rely on Christ? He relies on himself.
You responded : You mean like doing good works? Participating in rituals in the temple? Like believing that a man can generate God pleasing love in a corrupt heart? That kind of self reliance?
One who is rich has money. Why pray to God? What does a rich man need in groveling before God? They can buy whatever they desire. Thus, they rely on their own means, not praying to God. That's what I am talking about, not good works or rituals!
If you can show me a scripture that a man is capable of self generated love that will please God I would be interested in that. Can a man have the Love of Christ come from a corrupt heart?
Ugghh. I feel like I am repeating myself over and over again! I never said a man generates self love that is pleasing to God. Don't make me retype the cookie story!. Really, is it so hard to understand that we cooperate with God, but we absolutely need Him to do anything? Thus, it IS correct to say 'my' work, since I responded positively to God's enabling graces in the first place. You do realize that Scripture says we can refuse graces?
He did not even KNOW God how could he be dedicated to Him?
He didn¡¦t know God??? Than why, pray tell, did He faithfully obey the commandments - and not out of hypocrisy?
Christ did not come to destroy or to abolish the law or the Prophets. Every jot and tittle is still in effect, but Jesus makes it very clear that what He came to do, is to FULFILL them, because we never can . When Jesus says He fulfills the Law, that doesn't mean we are not responsible to keep the Law. It means that His teachings, along with His Redemptive Work on the Cross, would fulfill Scriptures and the meaning of the Law. When God gave Moses the Decalogue, He had in mind the teachings of Christ for their proper fulfillment. You say we cannot (even in Christ) keep the teachings of the Law as expanded upon in Mat 5-7? Sure we can. Jesus specifically TELLS US:
Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not commit murder, and whosoever shall commit murder shall be guilty of the judgment; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother out of control shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall insult his brother shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say, Thou art impious, shall be in danger of hell. Matt 5:21-22
Isn't it clear that Jesus is giving a new teaching, one that goes beyond 'what you have heard from the ancients'? THIS is the fulfillment of the Law, the original intention of God. Not merely shall we not murder and kill. But we shall not even be ANGRY or INSULT our brothers. How do you twist this to say that JESUS is to fulfill these teachings? He is giving US the teachings, not showing to everyone that HE ALONE will do the teachings and so we are no longer responsible to obey them! Really, this idea TOTALLY ignores the teachings Christ gives us for the sake of an invented theology of imputed justification
Regards
James is referring, as Paul does in Romans and Galatians, that those who try to earn their way to heaven would HAVE to keep the ENTIRE LAW perfectly. If a person tried to obligate God, they would have to be perfect as God is perfect. Thus, we must rely on grace to fulfill the Law. Under grace, we are not under the system of the Law where perfect law-keeping is required. Under Grace, we are children who are still responsible to the Law, but we are not absolutely required to keep it perfectly. We are under a familial covenant with the Father. As long as we humbly come to the Father when we sin, asking for forgiveness, and truly trying to please God from our heart with faith working in love, God does not hold us to perfect law-keeping. A Father can forgive His children of breaking the Law, just as you do when you children disobey you. An Employer (God), though, DEMANDS perfect work (law-keeping) for perfect(heaven) wages. Thus, James and Paul say it is impossible.
All of us have a powerful instinct of self-preservation and self-fulfillment. We all want to be happy. That is self love not the love of God demanded here. But I do know one that kept this law, and he took my sinful self love to the cross and paid for it
Self-preservation is not sinful. And yes, Christ is the only One who COULD keep the Law perfectly, which is why His work was effective. But under grace, we are not demanded to keep the Law perfectly. We are children of God, not employees.
All the letters are to the church ( the saved.. Acts is a historical account as are the Gospels. (Many will say te gospels are actually OT as they are the account before the cross, before grace and mercy and redemption by Christ. The difference is that the letters were not written to tell the church how to be saved, they were already saved, it was doctrinal teachings and how to live the Christian life.
We have a difference of definitions here. “Saved” is NOT only an action in our past. Paul talks about BEING saved and WILL BE saved. He speaks of it as a future act and as a present act. Thus, the NT is to people who are saved, who are being saved, and who hope to be saved in heaven.
So men are not saved by Christ or His righteousness but by “their love ", could I have some scripture that love saves and not Christ?
I didn’t say men are saved by their love alone. How many times must I repeat myself – IF a person loves from his heart, it is ONLY because the Spirit of God is working in that person. Your attempts to limit the work of the Spirit are duly noted. But the Spirit will not be limited by your concepts or ideas of WHOM shall be saved: “prostitutes and tax-collectors will enter the Kingdom of God before …” fill in the blank with the supposed self-proclaimed saved person.
Were they showing all those saving works to God or each other? Did God need to SEE their works to know their hearts ?
Why does God allow tests? Why does God allow sufferings? Why indeed. It is for OUR good, not because God doesn’t know or for the benefit of showing another person our saving works! How else will we develop virtue if we do not face adversity? Will a spoiled rotten kid who is given everything in life have fortitude or courage? Only by facing danger and adversity do we grow in that virtue. Thus, God tests us so WE can grow and become more Christ-like.
There are those who have a faith which is so like that which is saving as they themselves may take it to be the very same, and others too may deem it sufficient, yea, even others who have the spirit of discernment. Simon Magus is a case in point....
Yes, I understand that we do not know who the “saved” are because we do not see into people’s hearts as God does. Isn’t that the point of the story of the cockles and wheat? The two look identical. So we are not called to “pull” and “separate the “weeds” in our midst because we really don’t KNOW who they are. That is God’s job at judgment day to do that. The point is : WE don’t know who is in the Book of the Elect, we don’t know for sure if our neighbor is “saved” for eternal life. Even our own salvation is not guaranteed, because we, too, have a clouded intellect. Thus, the whole idea of “saving faith” is merely a means for a person to declare THEMSELVES saved for eternal life. Are you aware of ONE person who says “I don’t have enough saving faith”? LOL! Unfortunately, it is a delusion and self-denial. It gives one ease that he is saved for heaven and no longer needs to “work out their salvation in fear”.
You have a doctrine of works built on one scripture. You have chosen to ignore all the passages on faith that it should be read with.
What do you mean by a doctrine of works? I have showed over and over that faith must be combined with works of love. Perhaps you should more carefully read what I write, and not what you THINK the Catholic Church teaches. I MYSELF have told you that Scripture often speaks (in the Gospels) about doing God’s will or being judged based on our works. I have said that it was UNDERSTOOD that faith was involved in those formulas, although not expressly noted. To love, one must have faith. Thus, when Christ speaks about lovingly obeying the Law, He naturally does not exclude faith! Please realize that the Scriptures point out over and over that we must have both faith and love to enter the Kingdom.
There is a day when we realize that our self generated faith can never save us, our works can never save us, our love can never save us .
Considering all of the words we have exchanged, it saddens me that very few of mine have sunken in, because you keep making the same old tired accusations that I have NEVER made. Please point out ONE sentence where I say we are saved by works alone. Please point out one sentence where we are saved without faith in God. Please point out one sentence where I say ANYTHING of ours is self-generated.
Do you know what a straw man argument is? Rather than engaging what I write, you are falsely accusing me of things I have never said or implied. I have taken great strides to correct these incorrect presumptions. Apparently, it isn’t working if we are this late into our conversations and you still make the same mistakes. I am sorry if my posts have destroyed your man-made theology, esp. regarding Mat 5:20, but constantly accusing me of things I have never said is not in the best interests of proper discourse.
Regards
Exactly! At first impercetipble, then gradually ever so. Just as the reunion will be, in reverse. We (Catholic and Orthodox) are in the mids of it and most of us don't even realize that we are part of it.
Excuse me, I think you are getting more confused by the minute. You said that man, in his wickedness, obeyed God to kill Christ. To you that's emulating Christ?
How can blind obedience to God-ordained sin be man's wickedness?
Your new tag line does not exclude free will. The whole thing about Christianity is that man disobeyed God's will. Obviously you haven't realized it yet. So, YES, God's will can be disobeyed and has been and continues to be disobeyed by man, exercising his free will daily, since Adam.
Yet, our loving God did not destroy us, but is trying to heal us and save us, even though we continue to sin and even though the founder of your sect urged you to "sin boldly..."
Your problem is that you see God as the author of good and evil. Yet you consider man to be "wicked" (by God's will no doubt).
I imagine that even a confused Protestant would say that God is good. But if He is good, that goodness sis not a "characteristic" of God, but His nature. If we can for a moment assume that He is also the author of evil, then He is evil by nature as well. And if we assume that He is just, He must also be essentially unjust, and if He is merciful, He must also be cruel.
That's not what Christ taught us. You have left the planet.
For if God is both good and evil, just and unjust, angry and happy, passionate and sad, He is not eternal and unchanging, but subject to moods and passions, to bribes and pleasures. That is a corrupt God. And if that is what Protestants other than you believe, then they also believe in a corrupt God, a Tyrant.
I was emphasizing God's overwhelming and lopsided relationship to counter the Protestant notion of some "fellowship" or "partnership," which trickles into the sola scriptura arrogance that tends to make every man his own pope and a "junior partner" in God's Firm. Christian God is humble. Protestants don't know what that means; they are directed to "sin boldly" by Luther.
Let's not fool ourselves that our response to God is of any real value to Him save for His love for us. And you point to a very important detail: that we must give ourselves totally to God and I will say that none of us does. The woman who gave her last two copper coins to God, gave little, but she gave everything to Him. That's what Christ taught us. He taught us that she loved God with all her heart, mind and soul.
Theologically, the [filioque] formula is acceptable (though I think "through" rather than "and" would be better)
Theologically, it is understandable inasmuch as it shows Latin error. +Gregory Palams describes the Holy Spirit as the eros (love) between the Father and the Son, as the Latin theologians do, but he makes sure to underscore that the Holy Spirit exists only from the Father, as does the Son. We could go on, of course, but the original Creed goes to the very eternal fountain of Divinity which is unmistakably and incorruptibly associated only with the Father, as the source of everything and all, including the Divinity.
Your problem rest in that it is impossible for you to explain my tagline.
I had the pleasure of attending Serbian Orthodox Vespers a time ago, I found them very beautiful and the people very warm and friendly
And I had the pleasure of being introduced to Orthodox Presbyterianism through a colleague I met in Japan. Most fascinating fellow. Of course, we didn't see things the same way, but I was very moved by his spirituality and devotion to faith, as understood by your side of the house, infant baptism, highly Trinitarian theology, etc.
I am sure you found the Vespers to be highly "idolatrous." :-)
To me I think the scriptures are very plain that man is inherently corrupt
Nonsense! The Scripture leaves no doubt that God created man in His image and likeness, i.e. good. Good try Sherlock.
The nature of ancestral sin is that we lost our likeness to God, while remaining in His image. Therefore we are not dead. We are defective and wounded, distorted and deficient. The whole concept of salvation is to conform to the likeness of Christ once again and to regain the original state. Obviously, we can't do it on our own, but need God to help us. Instead of destroying all of humanity, He is dedicated to healing it and restoring it.
God's laws are inscribed in our hearts (Heb 8), which means we do know what is good and what is evil. The problem is that we want only that which is "good" for us (self-love), and that we are unwilling to love our neighbor as ourselves, let alone God with all our heart and mind and soul.
Those who killed Christ knew He was innocent. Pontius Pilate said so. The Jews picked Barabbas over Christ. God did not lead them to it. He simply knows what corrupt human nature wills in its arrogance and pride.
I am not sure why you keep spouting Job. I am asking you to re-read Genesis. The story of Genesis tells us that MAN DSIOBEYED GOD'S WILL, which can only mean that MAN CAN DISOBEY GOD IF HE OR SHE WILLS TO DISOBEY GOD, consequences notwithstanding. Maybe Job didn't last very long, but Adam lived to be 900 years old.
I don't know how to explain this to you in more simple terms. It is obvious to all except those who are captive of their own pride, that man is free to obey or disobey God, because God gave us the mind and the free will to use it. The Scripture makes that abundantly clear. Unless of course you believe that God made Adam disobey, which brings us back to the corrupt God and some kind of Protestant Theology 101.
Well said; there is no other way.
Not at all. I loved the singing and the incense (as prayer going up to God) The church was beautiful ( even the chosen frozen can appreciate beauty and art ; ) I was especially touched by the people that greeted me and made me feel very welcome.
I thought the tradition of kneeling in greeting each other was respectful and humble. It is a pleasant memory, even if we do not agree on doctrine :)
Now you know we disagree :)
Hope you are well and blessed in this new year !
or...
Mat 12:34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
or...
Luk 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"
or...
Luk 18:19 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
Well, you [MAYBE] get the idea by now. Our Lord Jesus thought that only God [ie Himself] was good. Everyone else was evil. Sorry to disappoint.
Pro 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
I am glad you liked it, and I am glad (but not surprized) that you were well received. I felt the same way when I was invited to a Christmas lunch to my colleague's pastor's house where I had a chance to exchange many views and ask many questions of Christians whom I have never met. They received me as one of their own and accepted my differences graciously. But the fact that we did not share the same theology did not affect us as we celebrated the Birth of our Savior.
Oh, you are just being silly now. Mat 5:45 shows that God offers blessings to all.
But you are in denial that
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [Gen 1:31]
Sorry Harley, Scripture clearly states that man and woman were made in His image and likeness, and were given dominion over earth and everything that he created, and that God saw everything he had made, including man, and it was good.
As for ancestral (dis)obedience -- clearly Adam and Eve did that by their own decision. They decided to disobey God!
I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin"?
By what command and by whose authority>
I find it interesting that NO ONE even makes one protest against the scenario that Protestants propose: that the entire Church changed throughout the empire in one generation without a dissenting voice.
Well, I wouldn't imagine there would have been any protest at that time. Since, at the beginning, all new Christians were starting from scratch, there was nothing to which the early Christians could compare (in terms of other Christian thought). Those who accepted, simply accepted because that's all there was.
I'm not sure I understand your reference to "one generation". Was Luther's protest based on just what the early Christians were doing, or was it based on what he perceived to be gradual changes in the Church over time until a final straw was broken?
Note, in Matthew's Gospel [28:19-20], Jesus says He will be with the Church for ALL time until the end of the world. Thus, He is providing for a CONTINUOUS succession of Apostles. Certainly, Christ's mandate would not end with the death of these particular men! The Kingdom of God must go out to the entire world and for all time!
There's the rub, what do you mean by "Church"? For you to be right, then when Jesus said "I am with you always", He would only be with Roman Catholics, not all Christians. I read it more broadly as referring to all ministers of the true gospel. If you make this distinction, then the rest of the NT really shouldn't have any meaning to a non-Catholic, because it wasn't written to them. You're saying that the Great Commission was only given to Roman Catholic hierarchy, not to the rest of us, not even to the Catholic laity. If Christ is not even with Catholic laity for the purpose of going out and teaching all nations, then why should a lay Catholic even bother to evangelize?
AFTER His resurrection (and many people don't realize the significance of that), Jesus gave power to His Apostles to forgive sins in John 20:23.
I read the verse and it does appear to be problematic to my belief that only God can forgive sins, since the offense is against Him. I just can't square it against Mark 2:7. Yes, there the speakers were "teachers of the law" so it would be easy to say that they were simply wrong. However, Jesus speaks nothing of this error (if it is one). In fact, Jesus plays on the statement. The whole point here is to show that Jesus is revealing His identity by forgiving sins. I don't know of another example where Jesus grants the truth of a lie (that only God can forgive sin) in order to make His point. Here He was not exposing that "lie", He used it to claim openly that He was God. Just doesn't seem right.
Regarding the Sacrament of Confession. The point of the sacrament is NOT to "earn" salvation - a hoop to jump through to obtain salvation. It is there for our spiritual good. ... We are saved by the love we show others, done in faith, not by compiling a laundry list of things to do!
This continues to stymie me. First, I would fully agree that confession is good and that God tells us that we should "confess our sins, one to another". I agree that the confessor is benefited by confession and it glorifies God.
But here's what stumps me. You said that confession is not done to earn salvation. You said we have free will and that we must cooperate with God in our salvation. I thought it was also true that confession, and the other sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Every good Catholic knows that you will take the sacraments if you expect to go to heaven. So, how can these acts be done, without the expectation of earning salvation through our free will choices to cooperate with God?
I know this is where the inner disposition idea that you have talked about before comes in. I just don't see how someone could go through all the sacraments with no thought of self, when it is well known that they are the only way to get to heaven. It is natural for the touched heart to long to be saved. A heart with grace is able to see the need for God. Won't such a heart do whatever it takes (lifelong sacraments)? I know there is no money involved, only something INFINITELY more valuable! How is this not earning?
An example. Intercessionary prayers to the saints in heaven. The Scripture does not EXPLICITLY mention it. But Apostolic Tradition DOES. Is it actually refuted in Scriptures? No.
In my view, yes it is refuted:
1 Tim. 2:5 "5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...
God bless
Thanks very much for the whole explanation, that helps a lot!
Nothing accidental about it. The cadence and meter of the KJV are unparalleled. The truth is told in poetry, as God willed.
Everything was good BEFORE the fall. After the fall man was cursed. Why do you think they call it "the fall".
You've address none of my references where our Lord Jesus stated man was "evil" and there is no one who is "good". Yet you still insist that man is good?!? Plus, although my tagline clearly states that man's steps are ordained by the Lord and I provided another reference that states that God directs our footsteps, you still insist on man's "free will"?!?
Regardless of your thoughts on man's "free will", man is unable to come to God to "cleanse" his heart. God must do it.
Luther went on a pilgrimage to Rome and saw all sorts of things, including selling of the indulgences. But he also noticed that the official truth sometimes differed from the Scripture, as he read it.
But this happens all the time. The KVJ version of the Lord's Prayer is incorrect as compared to the original. It not only reverses some things, but contains incorrect tense in one instance and refers to "evil" in general rather than the "evil one" in particular as the original does. So, the same kind of error that bothered Luther continues now in his tradition generally known as the Protestant "church."
In addition to that, Luther and his apostates attacked the early church (and I don't mean a building in Rome), everything about the Church as it existed for 1,500 years and still does in the East and the West.
The Ever-Virgin Mary was reduced to just a "woman," and saints were "retired." Holy icons and images of saintly people were destroyed and called "idols."
Attacking the (im)morality of some Catholic clergy, Luther substituted his own "morality" by telling his followers to "sin boldly" for God will forgive them as long as they believe (but apparently his formula doesn't apply to Roman Catholics!).
He elevated man as the ultimate interpretor of the Scripture which exists only thanks to the Church which Luther called "apostate."
His man-made "church" has since splintered and continues to splinter into thousands of groups that are separate from each other, each claiming the "true" and inerrant interpretation of the faith through the Bible.
Luther proclaimed the Church to be in "error" theologically, but some half-educated backwoods self-made pastor interprets the Bible correctly through the Holy Spirit (imagine that -- Luther suggests the Holy Spirit has left the Church, but comes to every Joe who reads the Bible!)
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.