> “I can tell you the traditions Christ condemned and why. He condemned a 15c charlatan like Luther coming along and turning the Word of God upside down.”
.
Luther revived a church that had been dead, and non-existant for a millenium.
Rogue despots declared themselves to be the “Fathers” of Christ’s church, and brutalized all who sought Christ until Luther was given courage by the Holy Spirit, and the church was reborn, turning the traditions of despotic men (Nicolaitanos) upside down.
His first tenet is that men are saved by faith alone and that men are saved at the time they make a profession of faith onward no matter what sins they subsequently commit. That teaching is absurd and damaging to anyone's soul, and it is in plain contradiction to the scripture, which teaches the necessity of both good works and penance for salvation.
Further, had Luther simply offer us a new religion which "corrected" the scripture, sort of like Mohammed, that would have been an honest thing to do. But instead he created a system of deception that allowed men he trained in his German sophistry to rationalize and spin away a better half of the Bible to suit his theological fantasy. He then capped that off by saying that he was reforming, or even "reviving" Christianity. He is a cheap shyster, and those who believed him place their souls in great danger.
You can rebuff what I say by explaining how it is that "faith alone" is a biblical concept. Do mot forget to involve James 2:17-26 and Matthew 31-46 because these two passages most clearly contradict the basis of Protestantism.
Or you can continue posting something accusing the Church of God of all kind of evil.
Either way, you are not talking to uneducated peasants like Luther did. If you wish a serious scriptural dispute you will get it.