Replies

as if he were a pope

I think I explained that. I know Protestants have no popes, but in Luther's shenanigans -- both with his "marriage" and his unbridled masturbation habit, -- I see a pattern of individualistic self-indulgence in Protestantism that has lead over time to bizarre interpretations of the Holy Scripture and the moral decay of the modern Western society, gay "rights" and all. Maybe you needed a pope, of some kind.

Of course he weaseled out of his pro-polygamy scriptural stance. I would like to know which were his scriptural arguments for monogamy though.

she claims to define both what Scripture consists up and its meaning

But we do so in accordance with consensus patrem. There is that continuity of hermeneutics, you know. You should have it, too.

Yes, plenty of lay Catholics do not know their doctrines. For that, too, I blame YOU KNOW WHOM.

I got to run. Thank you for taking the trouble with this lengthy post; I will return to it if need be.

...and his unbridled masturbation habit...

HMMmm...

I think I explained that. I know Protestants have no popes, but in Luther's shenanigans -- both with his "marriage" and his unbridled masturbation habit, -- I see a pattern of individualistic self-indulgence in Protestantism that has lead over time to bizarre interpretations of the Holy Scripture and the moral decay of the modern Western society, gay "rights" and all.

Are there no depths to which you will not go in your attempt at assassinating Luther's character?

Do you know what the word *shame* means?

Some of it would do you some good.

in Luther's shenanigans -- both with his "marriage" and his unbridled masturbation habit

It seems only an RC needing an argument would make marriage btwn two never married believers into fornication, while who knows what propagandist psychohistory derived the idea of "Luther's unbridled masturbation habit" as supported by Scripture

One of your own apologists (Dave Armstrong) quotes Luther for support in opposing masturbation, as in warning that if priests, monks, and nuns find that God's ordinance to produce seed and to multiply is too powerful and strong within them then "you may be sure that they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication." (Luther's Works, Muhlenberg Press, Volume 45, p. 19) And in judging that "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21)

I see a pattern of individualistic self-indulgence in Protestantism that has lead over time to bizarre interpretations of the Holy Scripture

Rather, what is bizarre is the lengths you will go to in order to defend an autocratic self-proclaimed elitist entity with a pattern of self-indulgence in self-exaltation and carnal means of defending herself.

And which led to gross and widespread moral excess in Rome itself, which fostered the Reformation. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes "the deplorable corruption of the Church, the grasping cupidity of Roman curial procedure, the cold commercialism and deep-seated immorality that infected many of the clergy" at the the time of Luther.

And holding Scripture as supreme and working to establish claims by its manner of substantiation has borne much superior fruit in worship (including its multitude of hymns by multitudes of converts) holiness and works (from Biblical exegesis to mission to social works) in proportion to its numbers.

And which was by those who further developed and continued in the path of the supremacy of Scripture and relying on establishing things after its manner, versus that of the sola ecclesia of Rome and cults which it historically contended against.

Rome has not the likes of souls from Matthew Henry to Whitefield to Spurgeon to Moody to Fanny Crosby. And which faith exposes the modern declension seen by men as Osteen. Hinn, etc. whose means are contrary to historical Evangelical SS principals. And there will always be those who seriously depart from the faith as Scripture foretold,

And as true faith must rely on spiritual power and conversion, and cannot rely on carnal means and institutional security, thus its present declension requires separation from such.

I do realize that you likewise are grieved, by those forsake the old paths of Rome, however, it is modern Rome itself that fosters such, and under sola ecclesia if the organization goes south then the members cannotr separate unless they be in schism, and thus as Rome went liberal then we saw the rise of the SSPX and sedevantists.

But we do so in accordance with consensus patrem. There is that continuity of hermeneutics, you know. You should have it, too.

We do indeed have Scriptural traditions, but as the NT had to continually rely on establishment by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and not on autocratic self declaration, so must the church of the living God today, and those who are of the Spirit find fellowship based on a common regeneration by the power of God, and relationship with Christ, not on ID with a particular church.