Jesus proved it to you and me, but certainly not to everyone, for everyone is not saved. Even eyewitnesses to Christ were not saved. So what are the credentials that Luther was supposed to have? It is easy for you to invalidate the Reformation because you, through your hierarchy, claim sole authority to speak for God. It's that simple, and Protestants disagree. We just as easily declare that your leaders do not speak for God because God does not contradict Himself. There is the impasse.
I don't know that Luther ever claimed any of his teachings were on a par with a Biblical Gospel. Do you say that he did? Of course, we each have our separate opinions on Whom was leading him.
The Keys are only given to the Pope - there has been some 250 over 2000 years, not millions.
OK, maybe I'm not familiar with the term "Keys to the Kingdom" as a being a defined term. I was referring to all Catholic clergy, past, present, and future. If only the Pope has the keys, then how does this fit in with a "consensus" (which I assume includes others besides the Pope) declaring infallible doctrine? Do they not have the keys?
Look at it this way... When you leave on vacation, you give your neighbor a spare key. That person has authority over your house while you are away. Yet, you still have ultimate authority. Your neighbor doesn't own your house! When you return, you have your own key, AND you will hold your neighbor accountable for the care of your house. Christ will do EXACTLY the same thing to His pastors that He has left behind until His victorious second coming.
That is an interesting way to look at it. I suppose I've just never thought of God being that much removed from us. I know you're not saying that God abandons us or anything, but for your analogy to work, there has to be some level of removal by God from the scene to a much higher degree than simply His assumption. I'm not sure how that squares with dozens of verses in the Bible, including in the Great Commission. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely inactive, how active do you see God as being in our lives? I'll shock you and say that I believe it is a 10. :)
The problem is that we disagree on Bible interpretation, not that Catholic teaching is ANTI-Biblical.
Without being accusatory, what's the difference? :)
[continuing...] An example is Romans 3. Clearly, you believe Paul thinks that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God, none are righteous. WE interpret that passage differently, that Paul was not speaking universally, but was quoting the OT Psalms that the wicked will never turn to God.
Yes, I believe Paul means that we are born that way and cannot come to God from only within ourselves. I'm still not sure about what your interpretation means. You agree that people need to come to God to be saved. Those who don't are lost. But surely, Paul agreed that some people who were formerly wicked, do come to Christ. He would probably start by naming himself. Therefore what is Paul's point, that those who are lost forever are lost forever? If so, this does not appear to be terribly instructive. :)
Put on the Jehovah Witness theology on, and you will think that the Bible says something else.
Do you know if they even use a scripture that is compatible with either yours or mine? I've read some of their pamphlets. Freaky stuff. :)
Unfortunately, the Bible is not a systematic theology book. Clearly, it is not divided into subjects that lay down in plain language what we are to believe on EVERY subject, like a Catechism would.
Why would the Bible have to be topical to be systematic? Why couldn't God's "system" have been to lay it out just as it is? It is loosely chronological, so we both like that. But, it does intermix common subjects throughout. Why couldn't the system have been to reinforce same ideas in different contexts? That seems like a logical teaching mechanism to me. It also appears to be an effective technique to show cohesiveness within the Bible, i.e. "yes, all these verses really do go together", etc. We obviously do disagree on how much of it was written in plain language.
So why does a Protestant KNOW he is saved after repeating it [sinner's prayer]? Getting my drift?
No. :) You have been shown and given access to multiple assurance passages. Your leaders interpret them all out of existence, or assign new meanings to them contrary to plain meaning. I, also, do not know what I can say.
Paul says NO ONE has an excuse. God has written His Law on the hearts of ALL men, even the Gentiles - but yet, many go off and do their own thing, rather than God's will. If someone is not saved, it is their own fault, as Paul wrote in Romans 1-2.
So what are the credentials that Luther was supposed to have?
In Galatians, Paul wrote that even if an angel of light were to teach another Gospel, let him be anathema. Luther would have to have some pretty solid evidence that he was more than an angel of light, because his gospel was not Paul's, nor was it Christ's. Luther's Gospel is a poor interpretation of Scripture based on a misinterpretation of Romans 3:28, where he ASSUMED that Paul meant "we are saved by faith ALONE". The language does not force one to make that assumption! Paul merely wrote we are saved by faith, not by works of the law. But elsewhere, Paul makes it quite clear that we are saved by faith AND works of LOVE! Thus, faith ALONE is a contradiction to Paul's writings. This is why the Church cast Luther out and you should as well. It is not the Gospel.
We just as easily declare that your leaders do not speak for God because God does not contradict Himself.
You declare it? Under whose authority? Where did Christ give someone other than the Apostles such authority? It sounds like you are taking upon yourself authority that you don't have. Jesus gave the APOSTLES the power to bind and loosen, not the entire community.
I don't know that Luther ever claimed any of his teachings were on a par with a Biblical Gospel.
Luther was a very proud man. He often claimed to be a messenger from God. He ranted and raved about the book of James - saying that upon HIS authority, it should be cast into the river and removed from Scripture. Upon HIS authority!!! He DEMANDED that the Scripture be changed to include the word "ALONE" into Romans 3:28. "If anyone asks why I added this word into Scripture, tell them Doctor Luther will have it as such"....If that is not the devil talking, I don't know what is. Follow whom you will.
If only the Pope has the keys, then how does this fit in with a "consensus" (which I assume includes others besides the Pope) declaring infallible doctrine? Do they not have the keys?
The Pope has ultimate visible authority, but the Apostle's successors, the bishops, are infallible when they come together and teach the faith. The Spirit speaks through the consensus, the sense of the faithful. But it is the successors of the Apostles who "read" this sense/consensus. Only they have been given the power to bind and loosen. Generally, they do not make infallible decisions unless their is a heretical teaching that is playing havoc among the sheep, such as Luther or Arius. Then, the Church is compelled to restate or clarify what the Church ALREADY believes and has taught by consensus.
I suppose I've just never thought of God being that much removed from us.
Spiritually, He is closer to us than ourselves. But visibly, we don't see or hear Him - at least publically. Some claim that God comes to them in visions and so forth. Perhaps He does. But we are not bound to such revelations. The Church remains Christ's visible presence on the earth - His healing and teaching ministry. His authoritative ministry. If there was no authoritative body, I don't see how we'd really KNOW what God teaches. You do realize that if 5 Baptists read the same chapter of Scripture, they'd get 7 interpretations among them, don't you? :)
On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely inactive, how active do you see God as being in our lives? I'll shock you and say that I believe it is a 10. :)
So you and the visible and Glorious Christ talk as you and I talk with each other? You sit down and eat with Him, He chews His food? The two of you go bowling? I am beginning to think you are pulling my leg here...
I said : The problem is that we disagree on Bible interpretation, not that Catholic teaching is ANTI-Biblical.
You said :Without being accusatory, what's the difference? :)
Sigh...Language is quite flexible. Words have different meanings. Sentences can be taken to mean many things. Here is an example:
I didn't say you stole the car.
What do I mean? That can be interpreted in several ways...
"I" didn't say it, Fred said it
I didn't "say" it, I wrote it
I didn't say you stole a "car", I said you stole a bicycle
I didn't say you "stole" a car, I said you borrowed it
Such a simple sentence, and you don't have a clue what I meant when I wrote it. And you are going to tell me that the Bible has only one meaning? That is pretty naive, frankly. ALL heresy comes from misinterpretating Scripture away from the writer's intent. Without a point of reference, a living authority, you'll never know what the writer meant, even on such "obvious" statements as "Jesus is the Son of God"
Therefore what is Paul's point, that those who are lost forever are lost forever? If so, this does not appear to be terribly instructive. :)
I already told you many posts ago - that Paul is telling the proud Jews that THEY are not immune from falling away from God. He then give a litany of Psalms written by David directed at WICKED JEWS! Being a Jew doesn't make one holy and righteous. Consider reading the very end of Chapter 2 to get an idea of what Paul is going to discuss in Chapter 3. Context, brother. He continues this line of thought at the end of Chapter 3 (not saved by works of the law) and Chapter 4 (circumcision doesn't save - as Abraham was righteous BEFORE the ritual). Paul is attacking the Jewish idea of salvation, not making some universal statement that all men are wicked (which would apparently include Christ, as Paul never makes that exception anywhere in Romans). This is called reading one's own preconceived theology into Scripture and twisting it to mean something else.
Do you know if they even use a scripture that is compatible with either yours or mine? I've read some of their pamphlets.
You are missing the point. They interpret the Greek using different English words than the author intended - and this is proven by the Church Fathers and their interpretations of Scripture, esp. John 1. The point is that people can come to different conclusions ON THEIR OWN by reading the Bible, some that are diametrically opposed to Christianity. Were you aware that Luther did not rule out polygamy from daily Christian practice? He claimed that the Scripture did not prevent its practice! That's freaky stuff...
Why would the Bible have to be topical to be systematic? Why couldn't God's "system" have been to lay it out just as it is?
Because on the surface, it often appears to contradict itself. It is written by men of different ages, some who appear to give different messages. Peter himself wrote that we should beware when reading Paul, since many people have done damage to their faith by twisting it to their own detriment (oh, yes.)
We obviously do disagree on how much of it was written in plain language.
Sounds like lip service to the party line. If it was written clearly in plain language, there would be no disagreements on key issues. But there is NUMEROUS issues where we disagree over. You are avoiding the reality on the ground.
You have been shown and given access to multiple assurance passages.
As have you. I have given you at least a dozen Scripture verses that show that men can fall away AFTER being 'saved'. Your refusal to deal with this AND the reality that people fall away today tells us that Salvation to Eternal Life cannot be absolutely guaranteed from our point of view. If that doesn't appear obvious from your own experiences, than I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
Regards