| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 11/07/2009 2:30:07 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 10/26/2009 4:16:56 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
A few years ago, I slipped into the back of a large Methodist church in the area to hear a sermon delivered by the pastor which had been advertised for several days on the marquee on the lawn in front of the handsome Neo-Gothic stone edifice. I really wanted to hear what he had to say on that particular Sunday.
The occasion of this sermon was what Protestants celebrate as "Reformation Sunday," in remembrance of the sad, tragic rebellion against the Catholic Church. Of course, that's my take on what Reformation Sunday symbolizes. The pastor whose sermon I heard that day had a much different view. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at patrickmadrid.blogspot.com ...
Excellent post Cronos!
This is one of THE most astonishing posts ever to appear on FR. It fully and completely discloses the Catholic church’s view of itself versus the Scriptures. Paul has been relegated to the role of “tract writer”. Paul had “...his own views of Christendom, but there are other tracts in the Bible that flatly contradict salvation by grace alone.”???? You are mistaken. And this is heretical, devlish, and...typically Catholic.
Calvin, Luther and other Reformers pointed back to the Scriptures to declare the Catholic Church’s departure from the very truths that self-elevating organization claimed to have delivered to the world. No one “follows” Calvin. Your post, however, shows just how desparately speakers of truth were were needed then and are needed now.
I’ll tell you what is “too vast” for Catholics to comprehend...they are trapped in a self-serving cult of man made tradition and demonic doctrine. This post exposes their love of their own organization over the Scriptures and over truth delivered by the Apostles. We now see that the Catholic Church views ITSELF at the center of its theology, the true CENTER of the universe.
I’ll also tell you the Scriptures teach the true means of salvation, and it has nothing, repeat nothing to do with that hideous self-aggrandizing thing in the Vatican. The Bible teaches that salvation is according to pure and utter grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ, and that not of yourselves, lest Rome boast like it this. The darkness is on the land from Rome, the Catholic Church, the Vatican or whatever name it wishes to claim.
Repent Rome, if you can.
Belief in TULIP and all that other rot constitutes "following Calvin," since he is the one who made it all up.
Hmmm, an interesting claim. And just whom do you pretend to be quoting?
TULIP, five solas
...and demonic doctrine...
God created Hitler without free will and deprived him of grace so that he could exterminate eleven million people in a program of industrialized slaugher.
Orthodox Presbyterian Calvinism is the demonic little self-serving cult.
As Calvin wills.
God is the author of Paul’s epistles and Peter’s and the four Gospels and all the rest, OT included.
Separating Paul from the Bible, slicing and dicing Scripture into convenient decks of Deal-a-Meal verses, teasing out what is needed and abandoning the rest....that does insult to the Author of it all.
Paul’s letters are no more (or less) important than any other part of Scripture, and it all must be taken as a whole.
I thank God for Martin Luther and for the reformation! Hallelujah!!!
Amen, Marie. Works do not save us but God expects us to do the works He created for us from the beginning after we are born again.
I believe we all agree on salvation. It’s works maybe that we don’t agree on? Baptism doesn’t save us, neither do works. But to my knowledge, most protestant churches believe that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ.
Not unusual, eh?
Contrary to what Papists* believe, Calvin did not formulate the 5 points of TULIP.
*followers of the Pope, whomever that may be at any given moment.
I agree, Marie. After we are saved, works are a command from God. He has prepared certain works for us to do and we need to ask Him what they are. We of course should do good things for other people, but He has prepared certain works for us to do.
Your reply is what I expected. The Octopus defense. Squirt ink and hope it obscures reality.
Your post 43 makes the astonishing boast, “Everyone in England knew the scriptures in English. That’s the language in which it was read to them and explained to them at Mass and in open air preaching. Even the translators of the KJV admitted the Bible existed in English long before they came along.”
And you continue to push this ridiculous position, now claiming “But I’ve already shown that it was published, distributed and tolerated in the hands of Catholics.”
Really? You’ve shown that? What were the translations that these Catholic Bibles were published as? The DRV didn’t come about until 50 years or so after Tyndale’s death, and was done so poorly that i around 1750, it was ‘revised’ to take much of its text from the KJV, which in turn was primarily from Tyndale!
So what were these Bibles that Catholic Priests danced around England, distributing and teaching from? What are their names? Where were they published? Who gave them approval? How many sold, or were tossed into the hands of grateful children by benevolent dancing priests?
And those STUPID Englishmen! They could have peacefully read from their Catholic Bibles and die of old age, but instead they risked their lives to read...Wycliffe & Tyndale’s translations.
Please explain, Doctor of Medieval History, what mass psychosis overcame England, that people would risk death to get a copy from Tyndale of what they could read in peace from the Catholic Church?
You write: “It is not the job of the Church to PUBLISH any book. It is the job of the Church to preach.”
You left one tiny phrase off. It is the job of the Church to preach THE WORD OF GOD! Not the teachings of men, but of GOD!
What did Jesus say? “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of a priest.”
No, not quite! “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth OF GOD.”
Now, if your Catholicism is better than your history, you will admit that the scriptures are “God-breathed”. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see that the words of God should be proclaimed, which is hard to do if you don’t allow anyone to read them.
Wait! Sorry! I forgot about those dancing priests handing out scripture all over England...
You write: “It was not that he was saying the commoners were swine because of their commonness, but that they would take the scriptures and twist them because they didn’t know what they meant. Protestants do it all the time.”
Here is the quote you provided: “And so the Gospel pearl is thrown before swine and trodden under foot and that which used to be so dear to both clergy and laity has become a joke, and this precious gem of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity, so that what used to be the highest gift of the clergy and the learned members of the Church has become common to the laity.”
I dunno...maybe it sounds different in Latin. As it is, I leave it for any who can read to determine the meaning.
“The fact that it was a translation was not a problem. The fact that it was considered filled with errors, deceptions, lying notes and produced by a known heretic - yeah, that was a problem.”
Yep, filled with errors...and the KJV followed it (over 90% in the NT), and the current DRV takes from the KJV. Of course, the Catholic Church could have corrected it and published, but we get back to the job of the Church...which you believe is NOT to distribute or teach the Word of God.
Most of your remaining post compares Protestant to Mormons and JWs, and says they do a better job of getting out scripture. Except the JWs change it to match their theology, rather than make their theology match scripture, and the Mormons use the Book of Mormon / Pearl of Great Price / D&C and only permit the Bible ‘so far as correctly translated’ - which, in the tradition of Thomas More, means it is incorrectly translated anytime it disagrees with their theology. The problem with Mormons and JWs is not that they follow the Bible, but that they do NOT!
So we get to the bottom line...no honest historian doubts the enormous impact Luther’s & Tyndale’s translations had, or the way they were devoured by the common folks.
You claim the common folk already had Bibles available in their own languages, that “Everyone in England knew the scriptures in English”...so why did they risk their lives to get & read Tyndale’s translation?
How could a hunted criminal, working under threat of death - and eventually dying - do what the Vicar of Christ could not or would not: get the Word of God to the people?
The answer, of course, is that the ‘Vicar of Christ’ WOULD NOT! He had no desire for common men to read the scriptures, and ask, “Where is Purgatory? Where are Indulgences? Where are offices for sale? Where is THE POPE?”
As for the Church running England in the 1300s/1400s...I did not mean to suggest the Pope directly was the head of government, nor do I believe that is a reasonable assumption about what I said. However, consider Thomas Arundel, who I mentioned before:
“Landing with Henry at Ravenspur, he accompanied him to the west. He took his place at once as archbishop of Canterbury, witnessed the abdication of Richard in the Tower of London, led the new king, Henry IV., to his throne in presence of the peers, and crowned him on the 13th of October 1399.
The main work of his later years was the defence of the church, and the suppression of heresy. To put down the Lollards, he called a meeting of the clergy, pressed on the statute de haeretico comburendo, and passed sentence of degradation upon William Sawtrey. He resisted the attempt of the parliament of 1404 to disendow the church, but failed to induce Henry to pardon Archbishop Scrope in 1405. In 1407 he became chancellor for the fourth time, and in 1408 summoned a council at Oxford, which drew up constitutions against the Lollards. These he published in January 1409, and among them was one forbidding the translation of the Bible into English without the consent of the bishop of the diocese, or of a provincial synod.” - http://1911encyclopedia.org/Thomas_Arundel
Now, tell me again about the meek Catholic Church, only seeking spiritual good, buffeted by all those mean monarchs, and who really had no resources to counter those big, bad Lollards!
And while you are at it, tell me again about all those approved translations made between 1408 and 1538...or even those made in the 1300s, and that continued to be published and distributed to the common man, and why the English instead risked their lives to read Wycliffe & Tyndale.
Good post, Mr. Rogers. Thanks.
“we don’t read Paul to exclusion”
It seems to me more concise and accurate to say you don’t read scripture at all...and why should you, when the real interpretation lies in the Catechism, and not the Scriptures?
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.