'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

No. Not new. But it still doesn't say that such was FAIR, which was the question. The perfect penitent pays the fine satisfying justice. But fairness is not satisfied. Fair is that every man pays for crimes he commits and that no-one is punished for crimes he didn't commit. That's fairness. The cross is NOT fair. It's just. It's merciful. But fair it is not - nor does it have to be. Goodnight.

This is part of the justice required after the Fall. The law given to Adam. And the result from Man's choice was death and sin. But God did not wish death and sin, yet that was the punishment required..

God's goodness is revealed in that He did not disregard the frailty of His own handiwork, but was moved with compassion for him in his fall, and stretched forth His hand to him: and His justice in that when man was overcome He did not make another victorious over the tyrant, nor did He snatch man by might from death, but in His goodness and justice He made him, who had become through his sins the slave of death, himself once more conqueror and rescued like by like, most difficult though it seemed: and His wisdom is seen in His devising the most fitting solution of the difficulty. …
And God being perfect becomes perfect man, and brings to perfection the newest of all new things, the only new thing under the Sun, through which the boundless might of God is manifested. For what greater thing is there, than that God should become Man? And the Word became flesh without being changed, of the Holy Spirit, and Mary the holy and ever-virgin one, the mother of God. And He acts as mediator between God and man, He the only lover of man conceived in the Virgin's chaste womb without will or desire, or any connection with man or pleasurable generation, but through the Holy Spirit and the first offspring of Adam.
And He becomes obedient to the Father Who is like unto us, and finds a remedy for our disobedience in what He had assumed from us, and became a pattern of obedience to us without which it is not possible to obtain salvation.

Justice and Mercy.

If the law says the fine must be paid and I love you enough to pay it for you, it's fair for me.

"More careful" is not a real answer.

No it's not.

If this existence is only one big natural disaster with irresistable forces throwing us about and whether we are careful or careless, whether we step right, step left - can equally result in our doom, then "Be careful" is not a real answer.

You're right, there is nothing I can tell you that makes any sense at all.

fairness is not satisfied

All analogies break down at some point. But we can try this one a little farther. In talking of 'fair' we have to bear in mind who made the law, who set the fine, who decided how the fine was to be paid and by whom.

With this, I hope you are sleeping well and I promise once again to leave you much time tommorrow and on to skillfully pummel me about my argumentative head.

God bless..

Blogger you don't seem to understand the history of the Protestant Revolution as well as you do. You wrote:

"Luther had an epiphany though in his translation of the New Testament into German. He realized that what was being taught by the church was not Scriptural."

Nonsense. Luther began his rebellion in 1517. He translated his NT several years LATER. Already in 1517 his views on sola fide, for instance, were set.

"He could not help but go in an opposite direction - towards Sola Scriptura."

Again, nonsense. Luther had already been tilting toward sola scriptura BEFORE he began his rebellion. His attitude hardened as he was attacked. As always, however, his sola scriptura was no more intellectually honest than that of any other sola scripturist's. Martin Luther, when confronted over his arbitrary changing of the meaning of Romans 3:28 wrote: "You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word 'alone' is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone,' say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,' and say:'Papists and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate... It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out." (Rebuilding a Lost Faith, John Stoddard, p. 136-137)

Luther's will is reason enough? The hubris was incredible.

"For when the church says that you can buy your way or a relative's way out of punishment in purgatory,..."

The Church never ONCE said that. Not once. Johann Tetzel may very well have said that. He had no authority to do so.

"...it is preaching a different gospel altogether than that once delivered to the saints."

And when someone teaches a forensic form of justification ONLY then that too is a different gospel.

"When the churchmen are allowed to use their posts not to shepherd flocks but to fleece the flocks, one must go in another direction."

Protestants fleeced their flocks and robbed churches more than any and all Catholics combined. Luther even dangled the wealth of monasteries in front of the eyes of nobles to encourage them to rebel against the Church. It worked. Luther himself even temporarily moved into a despoiled monastery!

"Rome was in big trouble in Luther's day and only through the reforms of Ignatius did some of the most obvious abuses improve..."

Reforms of Ignatius? Ignatius who? Ignatius of Loyola? He was the leader of the Jesuits. He was never pope and he never reformed the Church.

"...(though we as Protestants would still argue there is a different gospel found within Rome and we would do so from Scripture)."

No you wouldn't. You would argue from your fantasies. Your "will is reason enough".

"Protestantism is fragmented. I think God designed it that way because of what a centralized church became."

The Church was never as centralized as Protestant sects of the sixteenth century. Catholic Bishops were essentially independent rulers within their dioceses. No Protestant bishop could claim that. They were all subject to the authority of the state and the power of the state was EVERYWHERE and had armies.

"On the essential of what actually saves, you will find much harmony between Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and most Protestant groups. We have a lot of difference on what I would consider non-essentials."

Is baptism essential? Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists say babies can be baptized. Baptists say not. All groups claim to believe in sola scriptura. How can they differ? What good is a theory, sola scriptura, that never seems to work?

"But there is some difference within Catholicism on the non-essentials too (some Catholics are charismatic, some want a Latin only mass, some are more adherent to the Pope's social pronouncements than others etc.,)"

Poor analogy on your part. Take two Catholics. One likes only the Latin Mass. The other likes only the new Mass. To be faithful Catholics, however, they must both admit that each offers a valid sacrament. They are united in their belief that the Mass (whether old or new) is a Mass with a valid sacrament. Now take a Presbyterian and a Baptist. Both believe in baptism. Yet Baptists say it's only for those old enough to express faith, while Presbyterians say it's for infants too. They completely disagree yet both rely on exactly the same source for their understanding of baptism: the Bible. We are united by the Church and it's interpretation of scripture. You are divided, naturally, by your interpretations of scripture. How sad.

And when someone teaches a forensic form of justification ONLY then that too is a different gospel.

It's not surprising you get this wrong. It was the core impetus for the Reformation.

JUSTIFICATION IS A FORENSIC ACT
by Charles Hodge

"By this the Reformers intended, in the first place, to deny the Romish doctrine of subjective[1] justification. That is, that justification consists in an act of God making the sinner subjectively holy. Romanists confound or unite justification and sanctification. They define justification as “the remission of sin and infusion of new habits of grace.” By remission of sin they mean not simply pardon, but the removal of everything of the nature of sin from the soul. Justification, therefore, with them, is purely subjective, consisting in the destruction of sin and the infusion[2] of holiness.
In opposition to this doctrine, the Reformers maintained that by justification the Scriptures mean something different from sanctification. That the two gifts, although inseparable, are distinct, and that justification, instead of being an efficient act changing the inward character of the sinner, is a declarative act, announcing and determining his relation to the Law and justice of God.
In the second place, the Symbols[3] of the Reformation no less explicitly teach that justification is not simply pardon and restoration. It includes pardon, but it also includes a declaration that the believer is just or righteous in the sight of the Law. He has a right to plead a righteousness which completely satisfies its demands.
And, therefore, in the third place, affirmatively, those Symbols teach that justification is a judicial or forensic act, i .e ., an act of God as Judge proceeding according to Law, declaring that the sinner is just, i .e ., that the Law no longer condemns him, but acquits and pronounces him to be entitled to eternal life..."

And here...

JUSTIFICATION: FORENSIC OR MORAL?
by Francis Turretin

"Is the word Justification always used in a forensic sense in this argument, or also in a moral and physical? The former we affirm, the latter we deny, against the Romanists.
I. As in the chain of salvation Justification follows Vocation, Rom. 8:30, and is everywhere set forth as the primary effect of faith. The topic concerning Vocation and Faith begets the Topic concerning Justification, which must be handled with the greater care and accuracy as this saving doctrine is of the greatest importance in religion. It is called by Luther, the article of a standing and falling church; by other Christians it is termed the characteristic and basis of Christianity not without reason, the principle rampart of the Christian religion, and, it being adulterated or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other places. Whence Satan in every way has endeavored to corrupt this doctrine in all ages; as has been done especially in the Papacy: for which reason it is deservedly placed among the primary causes of our Secession from the Roman Church and of the Reformation..."

God give you ears to hear the truth. We are saved by Christ's righteousness alone.

"Justification, the cardinal principle of the Reformation, is the heart of the Reformed or Presbyterian faith as truly as it is of the evangelical or Lutheran doctrine. It refers to the divine act whereby God freely makes humans, who are sinful and therefore worthy of condemnation, acceptable before a God who is holy and righteous. Justification is forensic (that is, it is "courtroom language"). We are declared, counted or reckoned to be righteous when God imputes the righteousness of Christ (an "alien righteousness") to our account. In other words, the Judge of all the earth declares us "not guilty" when we believe because Christ was pronounced "guilty" for us on the cross. We are not first made righteous, then declared righteous; we are declared righteous by grace through faith in Christ, then made righteous! When we believe, God imputes Christ's righteousness to us 'as if' it were our own. However, it is HIS righteousness, that is why Paul says in Romans 1:17 that there is a righteousness that has been revealed from God, a righteousness not of our own, but a righteousness revealed from God and freely given to those who do not work, but to those who believe." - By Charles R. Biggs

I haven't had a chance to go through all the posts, but this one is indeed excellent. Thanks for the ping and thanks to Blogger for the excellent testimony.

Well, I guess I'm sorry to hear that you are either a Universalist then or believe that God is cruel and capricious- or, God is NOT just, or worse yet, that you don't believe God is God at all. For, in order to be fair, God's choice must be made without partiality in respect to the persons being acted upon and can not be subjective (It's fair for you, but not for me).

Thus, God MUST pay for the sins of every last person on the planet and ALL must go free. In which case, you are a Universalist and we might as well toss Scripture out the window.

Or, Omniscient and Omnipotent God provides this ransom for ALL people but it is affected by
The people's choice.

If they choose to accept Christ's payment, then they go to heaven and Justice is seen in action though it can be argued that mercy is not since there is some merit to their having made the right choice therefore grace is no more grace.

If they choose to reject Christ's payment then you have double jeopardy with both Christ and the rejector paying for their own sins through death and pain and suffering. Sound fair. Well, it's not. In this case God is unjust (having created a situation of double-jeopardy where two people, one innocent and one guilty are paying for the same sins), cruel and capricious (for being God, all-knowing he knew that people would reject His Son but caused Him to suffer on the cross anyway- punishing Him for no reason at all), or He is not God for He would not be omniscient or omnipotent.

Not sure that is what you want D-fendr, but I'll leave it up to you tell me what you really believe about God's "fairness" on the cross. I believe He was just and merciful but that fairness was not required of him and the cross was quite UNFAIR.

You wrote:

"It's not surprising you get this wrong."

I didn't get this wrong.

"It was the core impetus for the Reformation."

So one error propelled another? No surprise there. Look, if the PURELY forensic way of looking at justification were the correct understanding you would think someone would have known about it BEFORE the 16th century wouldn't you?

"God give you ears to hear the truth. We are saved by Christ's righteousness alone."

We are saved by ONLY Christ's grace that He won for us on the cross. And that neither suggests a forensics only justification or necessitates a forensics only justification. Perhaps you didn't realize that?

I suggest you look here: http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS7.HTM#FAITH%20ALONE%20(%20SOLA%20FIDE)%20AND%20IMPUTED

"When you read Scripture you are guided by the Holy Ghost (although Scripture doesn't teach that)"

"even though Scripture teaches Jesus sent the Holy Spirit upon the Church to teach it all truth".

I believe you contradict yourself here. The church is made up of individual believers. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would teach us all things, (John 14:26), "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." He did not say the truth would be mediated through professionals or tradition or liturgy, but would "bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you".

The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father on all gathered at Pentecost; that was on over 120 people, including women. The Holy Spirit was later given to Gentiles and believers who were saved under John the Baptist's ministry just the same as He was given by the Father at Pentecost. Jesus is not referring to the "and He breathed on them..." episode since it was Jesus giving a temporary blessing, not the Father, and all of the disciples were not present to receive the Holy Spirit.

Part of the spiritual armour that Paul encourages the individual church members at Ephesus to put on is, the truth, the gospel, the word of God, (Eph. 6:13-18) "Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;". Again, Paul does not say that the truth, the gospel, or the Word are mediated, but he does say that the individual is to put them on themselves and stand fast in them.

We know of donatism. How come we know nothing of these other heresies, that look suspiciously as 16c inventions?

Apparently the history classes in Catholic schools are lacking.

If you look you will find there have always been sects of Christianity that did not believe in the union of church and state. They did not practice infant baptism. They believed in church discipline, equality of believers and most importantly the primacy of Scripture

You might want to look at the history of these sects from a variety of sources if you're really interested.

The sects I'm referring to are:

Montanists

Novatians

Donatists

Paulicians

Albigenses

Paterines

Petrobrussians

Henricians

Arnoldists

Waldenses

Anabaptists

They all preexisted the Reformation.

Fascinating. I'd heard of the Donatists, Montantists and the Novatians, none of whom I would want to claim any spiritual descent from, and the names of some of the others were vaguely familiar but I never knew anything of their history. Interesting that they seemed pretty much to have caught on in France and that the later ones are phenomenna of the Western Church. By the way, I doubt the early Eastern provenance of these groups unless they arrived with the Roma which I suppose is possible.

"The church is made up of individual believers."

Interesting, sort of Western, way to put it given the rather communal nature of the early Church and the definition of The Church we find in +Ignatius of Antioch's late 1st century writing. That sort of view explains, I think, a lot about where you Protestants are coming from not only in your sola scriptura idea, but indeed on your whole view of faith and church.

In Eastern Christianity one doesn't find the idea of the "individual" member. Its always a liturgical community that we see when we look at The Church rather than a grouping of individuals. This distinction likely goes a long to explaining why Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy haven't historically formed the basis of democratic societies while Protestantism did.

Rome fundamentally misses the point of Christ's atonement in that Rome believes Christ subjectively morphs the sinner into a non-sinner through an infusion of grace.

Thus this is what has permitted Rome to arrogantly believe it can dispense God's grace to whom it wills, and to parcel out salvation according to the dictates of men. "Say this prayer and receive this much grace." "Eat this wafer and ingest God Himself into your genetic code." "Do this and become God."

But Scripture does not tell us this. Scripture tells us all men are fallen and none seeks God unless God draws them, perfectly and irrevocably because it is the will of God that they receive grace. God is just and sin requires penalty, and the only recompense equal to the trespass is God Himself. We are sinners standing in condemnation by a just God who decided from before the foundation of the world to acquit some men by Christ taking on their sins and paying for every one of them.

I direct you again to Charles Hodge's Scriptural understanding of Paul regarding justification by grace through faith alone because he so clearly details its Scriptural foundation. But justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness was not a concoction of the Reformation; it was the center of Christ's ministry and the core of Paul's teaching. It was always the cornerstone of the church, regardless how far Rome strayed from the truth.

JUSTIFICATION IS A FORENSIC ACT

"...Justification the Opposite of Condemnation.
2. This is still further evident from the antithesis between condemnation and justification. Condemnation is not the opposite either of pardon or of reformation. To condemn is to pronounce guilty or worthy of punishment. To justify is to declare not guilty, or that justice does not demand punishment, or that the person concerned cannot justly be condemned. When, therefore, the Apostle says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1), he declares that they are absolved from guilt; that the penalty of the Law cannot justly be inflicted upon them. "Who," he asks, "shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died" (8:33, 34). Against the elect in Christ no ground of condemnation can be presented. God pronounces them just, and therefore no one can pronounce them guilty.
This passage is certainly decisive against the doctrine of subjective justification in any form. This opposition between condemnation and justification is familiar both in Scripture and in common life. "If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me" (Job 9:20). "And wilt thou condemn him that is most just" (Job 34:17). If to condemn does not mean to make wicked, to justify does not mean to make good. And if condemnation is a judicial [act], so is justification. In condemnation it is a judge who pronounces sentence on the guilty. In justification it is a judge who pronounces or who declares the person arraigned free from guilt and entitled to be treated as righteous..."

"If to condemn does not mean to make wicked, to justify does not mean to make good." -- Hodge

AMEN.

We are saved by ONLY Christ's grace that He won for us on the cross.

If Rome had really believed this, there would have been no necessity for the Reformation. Are we made righteous ourselves, or is it Christ's righteousness that saves us?

Are men good or is Christ good?

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:4-5

"For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord." -- 1 Corinthians 4:4

Good morning, Wm. Ping to 4315.

I keep telling myself I'm going to stay out of this foolishness, but then the Prozac or the gin wears off ...

"Eat this wafer and ingest God Himself into your genetic code."

I don't think you can produce a serious Catholic argument about the doctrine of the Real Presence or of Transubstantiation which says anything about genetic code, or anything close to it.

And if I'm right and you know of no such argument, can you help me form an opinion about what sort of reliability I should attribute to a source which folds such an untruth into a polemical stream as though it were a known fact?

I understand the Reformation and Luther quite well Vladimir. Luther was born to peasant stock in Germany. His father wanted him to be a lawyer, but after a scary thunderstorm in which he prayed to St. Anne, he carried through with his promise to her to be a monk. Luther took his monkhood very seriously. More seriously than most. Yet the more he studied, rather than being drawn towards God he was driven from Him - for He was ever trying to please an unpleasable god and never managing to get there. In 1509, he had a big opportunity as a monk. He went on pilgramage to Rome. He thought it would be a blessing. It was, but not in the way he thought. On the way to Rome, he fell ill. While ill, he expressed some of his struggles to a monk. The monk suggested he read Habakkuk and one verse there captured his attention. The Just Shall Live By Faith. He did not immediately realize the full theological import though. He recovered and continued his pilgramage to Rome. His eyes were opened to the corruption of Rome. Yet in the midst of this, he still held hope in the Papacy. He didn't believe that the Pope was aware of some of the sites he saw. Luther was a theologian. His journey STARTED before 1517's these, true. By 1512 he was a Theological Doctor and began teaching at Wittenberg. When studying Paul's letters, between 1512 and 1520, he became keenly aware through Scripture of what the doctrine of Justification was. Somewhere before 1517's thesis, Johann Tetzel arrived under the papal flag preaching about the sale of indulgences. He would say "Don't you hear the voices of your dead parents and other relatives crying out, "Have mercy on us, for we suffer great punishment and pain. From this, you could release us with a few alms . . . We have created you, fed you, cared for you and left you our temporal goods. Why do you treat us so cruelly and leave us to suffer in the flames, when it takes only a little to save us? [ Die Reformation in Augenzeugen Berichten, edited by Helmar Junghaus (Dusseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag, 1967), 44.]" And famously "Each time a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." Luther was livid. He wrote to protest this sale to the Archibishop (indicating that he believed at that point in church authority), and when nothing would be done posted the 95 theses on the door to the Wittenburg chapel. In these theses, he denied certain abilities of the Pope to remit sin but did NOT deny church authority: "5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons. 6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven. 25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish. 26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession. 75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness. 76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned. 77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope. 78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii. 79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy. 80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render. 82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial." 86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?" 91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist. 92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace! 93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross! 94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell; 95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace. As you can see, Luther's mind was being transformed. But it was REFORM he wanted, not a revolution. He was still very Catholic in much of his theology. Rather than take a look at his church, Pope Leo dismissed him as a drunken German who will think better when he had sobered up. When he finally did get a full audience with the church it was for a heresy trial. He had been promised safe conduct, but the Elector had to hide him. By this point, he was standing on Scripture alone. In first years of the 1520s, Luther, hidden away did translate the Bible into German. The epiphany that I spoke of did occur at this time period where you see Luther's understanding of Scripture growing and a further transformation of his theology occuring. It was here that he truly understood Sola Gratia as never before: "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2 Pet 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign."[46] It was also around this period of time, maybe a little earlier, that the break with Rome, initiated BY ROME, would become permanent. Something about being locked up with nothing but a Greek Bible that changes a person. SOLA FIDE. SOLA GRATIA. SOLA SCRIPTURA. SOLOS CHRISTOS. Became more real than ever. He would not go back to Rome.

The Church never ONCE said that. Not once. Johann Tetzel may very well have said that. He had no authority to do so.
Check your history. Tetzel sold indulgences under the authority of the Pope, Leo X.

From the Catholic encyclopedia: In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined. The pope's income amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000 ducats. The papal household alone, which Julius II had maintained on 48,000 ducats, now cost double that sum. In all, Leo spent about four and a half million ducats during his pontificate and left a debt amounting to 400,000 ducats.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

Concerning your "Hubric" Luther quote, do you even care to see the context. Of course, Luther was being Luther when he wrote it - and I have to laugh because his language is so typically Luther. But, you cherry pick a quote as evidence that Luther wasn't Sola Scriptura and fail to take the whole context which Luther Himself explained later on. Read and enjoy.

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They write books? So do I.

I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, in fact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for I have been educated in and have practiced their science since my childhood. I recognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, know that everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they know and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago! To all their shouting and screaming I join the harlot in singing: "I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron."

So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word "sola" than simply "Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them. They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. An ass truly does not have to sing much as he is already known for his ears.

For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word "sola" - even though in Romans 3 it wasn't "sola" I used but "solum" or "tantum". That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! However, I have used "sola fides" in other places, and I want to use both "solum" and "sola". I have continually tried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened that I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single word for three or four weeks. Sometimes I have not found it even then. I have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in translating Job, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Now that it has been translated into German and completed, all can read and criticize it. One can now read three or four pages without stumbling one time - without realizing just what rocks and hindrances had once been where now one travels as as if over a smoothly-cut plank. We had to sweat and toil there before we removed those rocks and hindrances, so one could go along nicely. The plowing goes nicely in a clear field. But nobody wants the task of digging out the rocks and hindrances. There is no such thing as earning the world's thanks. Even God cannot earn thanks, not with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, or even the death of his Son. It just is and remains as it is, in the devil's name, as it will not be anything else.

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word "not" (nicht) or "no" (kein). For example, we say "the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?" There are a vast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helps the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

As to Baptism (boy you did have a loaded post there),I do not believe it is an essential. The thief on the cross was not baptized. Paul was thankful that he had only baptized a few folks. If it were part of one's actual salvation, then it would be an essential. You cite the unity of certain protestant groups verses baptists. To my knowledge, none of the groups mentioned believes that one must ABSOLUTELY be baptized to be saved. Calvin believed Baptism was much like the covenant God had with Israel through circumcision. In an infant, it was a way to dedicate that infant through grace to God's care in the belief that the infant would one day grow to be a Christian. He believed it should be practiced indiscriminately though. The elect would be properly baptized. The non-elect would get wet and would be no worse off. Luther believed in infant baptism, but justified it with passages of Scripture that seem to teach infant faith and analagous to circumcision. The United Methodist statement of faith says:Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church. So I believe they view it as a sign or symbol but not salvific(My UMC brethren can correct me on that if they wish). Baptists believe it is a picture of what has transpired in the life of the believer. When one is immersed, it isn't unusual to hear "Buried in the LIKENESS of his death and raised to walk in a new kind of life." It is a picture of regeneration but is not salvific. It should be done in obedience. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. Vladimir, you do seem to be heavily tainted by Catholic bias against the reformers. Nobody here follows the reformers. We enjoy reading them, yes. But as human beings they were very imperfect. Then again, all of us are. We follow Christ and listen to man insofar as he is in harmony with Scripture. It can be no other way.

1) Do you or do you not believe that at a certain and particular point in longitude where the priest raises the wafer it alchemically morphs into the actual body of Jesus Christ? Below that point, it remains flour. Above that point, it is materialistically God Himself.

2) Do you or do you not believe that man is saved by an infusion of grace into his own being, as opposed to the Scriptural understanding that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, given as payment for our sins so that we may stand acquitted of our sins?

3) Lay off the gin and the artificial serotonin-boosts, and maybe it will be clearer for you.

I see my post was removed, but I was QUOTING MAD DAWG. I was not using these references on my own. I was using HIS WORDS.

MAD DAWG: "I keep telling myself I'm going to stay out of this foolishness, but then the Prozac or the gin wears off ..."