The Newbie flamewar provocation is NOT THE WORK OF GOD. It is ZOT.

Q. Can any one reasonably believe that the change in religion brought about by Luther is the work of God?

A. No one can believe it, unless he be utterly ignorant of the true nature of religion, and very unlearned in the matters of history. 

A. Because, in the first place, the author of the Reformation is not a man of God; secondly, because his work is not the work of God; thirdly, because the means which he used in effecting his purpose are not of God. 

A. Because he has left us in his works abundant proof, that if God saw a need for any reformation in his Church, such a man as Luther would not be selected to carry God's will into effect. 

A. They are full of indecencies very offensive to modesty, crammed with a low buffoonery well calculated to bring religion into contempt, and interlarded with very many gross insults offered in a spirit very far from Christian charity and humility, to individuals of dignity and worth. 

Q. Passing over his indecencies in silence, give us a specimen of his buffooneries and insults. What does he say to the King of England, replying to a book which the King had written against him? (Tom. ii, p. 145.) [pg. 30]

A. He calls the king "an ass," "an idiot," "a fool," "whom very infants ought to mock." 

Q. How does he treat Cardinal Albert, Archbishop and Elector of Mayence, in the work which he wrote against the Bishop of Magdeburg? (Tom. vii, p. 353.) 

A. He calls him "an unfortunate little priest, crammed with an infinite number of devils." .

A. That he had "swallowed so may devils in eating and drinking, that he could not even spit any thing but a devil." He calls Duke George of Saxony, "a man of straw, who, with his immense belly, seemed to bid defiance to heaven, and to have swallowed up Jesus Christ himself."

Q. Was Luther's language more respectful, when he addressed the Emperor and the Pope? 

A. No; he treated them both with equal indignities; he said that the Grand Turk had ten times the virtue and good sense of the Emperor,—that the Pope was "a wild beast," "a ravenous wolf, against whom all Europe should rise in arms." 

Q. What do you conclude from Luther's insolent, outrageous, and libertine manner of speaking?  A. That he was not the man to be chosen by God to reform his church; for his language is the strongest proof that he was actuated, not by the spirit of God, but by the spirit of the devil. 

Q. May not his party say, that they care little about the manner of the man, if his doctrine be true,—that it is not upon him, but upon the word of God, they build their faith? 

A. If the Protestant doctrine be true, then God used Luther as a chosen instrument to reestablish his true faith; but no reasonable man can possibly believe the latter; therefore, neither can any reasonable man believe that the Protestant is the true faith. 

Q. May it not be objected that there were individual pastors in the Catholic Church as worthless as Luther? 

A. Yes; but all the pastors of the Catholic Church were not so at one and the same time, whilst Luther, at the time we speak of, was the first and only teacher of Protestantism. Besides, Christ himself give an unanswerable reply to the objection, (Matth. xxiii:) "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten in the chair of Moses; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do, but according to their works do ye not." Again, some Catholic pastors may have been bad men, but still they were the lawful ministers of God, having succeeded to lawfully commissioned predecessors; but Luther stood alone, he succeeded to none having lawful authority from whom he could derive a mission. In fine, whatever may have been the lives of some vicious Catholic pastors, they taught nothing new, their teaching was the same as that of the best and holiest ministers of the Church. Hence, there was no innovation in matters of faith, or principles of morality. But Luther was the first to teach a new doctrine, unknown in the world before his time.

Q. We are now satisfied that the author of Protestantism was not a man of God; show us that his undertaking was not from God;—what did he undertake? 

A. He undertook to show that the Church had fallen into error, separated himself from her, and formed his followers into a party against her.

A. No; for God has commanded us not to sit in judgment upon the Church, but to hear and obey her with respect; "and if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." (Matth. chap. xviii.) 

Q. Was it the particular "territorial" Church of the Roman States, or the Universal Catholic Church, that Luther charged with having erred? 

Q. How do you prove this?  A. Before the time of Luther, there was no Christian society in the whole world which believed the doctrines afterwards taught by Luther; consequently, he assailed not any particular sect or church, but the faith of the whole Christian world. 

Q. Are you quite sure, that it is incontestably true, that no Christian body every believed, before Luther's time, the new doctrines be began then to propagate? 

A. So sure, that we have Luther's own authority for it. His words are, (Tom. ii, p. 9, b.:) "How often has not my conscience been alarmed? How often have I not said to myself:—Dost thou ALONE of all men pretend to be wise? Dost thou pretend that ALL CHRISTIANS have been in error, during such a long period of years?" 

Q. What was it that gave Luther most pain, during the time he meditated the introduction of his new religion? 

A. A hidden respect for the authority of the Church, which he found it impossible to stifle. 

A. "After having subdued all other considerations, it was with the utmost difficulty I could eradicate from my heart the feeling that I should obey the Church." "I am not so presumptuous," said he, "as to believe, that it is in God's name I have commenced and carried on this affair; I should not wish to go to judgment, resting on the fact that God is my guide in these matters." (Tom. p. 364, b.)

Q. What think you of the schism caused by Luther? Can one prudently believe that it is the work of God? 

A. No; because God himself has forbidden schism as a dreadful crime: St. Paul (1st Corinth. chap. i. ver. 10) says: "Now I beseech you, brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no SCHISMS among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind and same judgment."

Q. What idea did Luther himself entertain about schism before he blinded himself by his infuriated antipathy to the Pope? 

A. He declared, that it was not lawful for any Christian whatever to separate himself from the Church of Rome. 

(Tom. i, p. 116, b.)  A."There is no question, no matter how important, which will justify a separation from the Church." Yet, notwithstanding, he himself burst the moorings which bound him to the Church, and, with his small band of ignorant and reckless followers, opposed her by every means in his power. 

Q. What do you remark on historical examples of conduct similar to this ever since the birth of Christianity? 

A. That in every age, when a small body detached itself from the Church, on account of doctrinal points, it has been universally the case, that the small body plunged by degrees deeper and deeper into error and heresy, and in the end, brought by its own increasing corruption into a state of decomposition, disappeared and perished. Of this we have hundreds of examples; nor can Lutherans or Calvinists reasonably hope, that their heresy and schism can have any other end. They are walking in the footsteps of those who have strayed from the fold of truth,—from the unity of faith; and they can have no other prospect, than the end of so many heresies that have gone before them..

Q. Why have you said, that the means adopted by Luther, to establish his new religion, were not of God? What were those means? 

A. That he might secure followers, he employed such means as were calculated to flatter the passions of men; he strewed the path to heaven—not like Christ with thorns, but like the devil—with flowers; he took off the cross which Christ had laid on the shoulders of men, he made wide the easy way, which Christ had left narrow and difficult. 

.  A. He permitted all who had made solemn vows of chastity, to violate their vows and marry; he permitted temporal sovereigns to plunder the property of the Church; he abolished confession, abstinence, fasting, and every work of penance and mortification. 

Q. How did he attempt to tranquillize the consciences he had disturbed by these scandalously libertine doctrines?

A. He invented a thing, which he called justifying faith, to be a sufficient substitute for all the above painful religious works, and invention which took off every responsibility from our shoulders, and laid all on the shoulders of Jesus Christ; in a word, he told men to believe in the merits of Christ as certainly applied to them, and live as they pleased, to indulge every criminal passion, without even the restraints of modesty. 

Q. How did he strive to gain over to his party a sufficient number of presumptuous, unprincipled, and dissolute men of talent, to preach and propagate his novelties? 

A. He pandered to their passions and flattered their pride, by granting them the sovereign honor of being their own judges in every religious question; he presented them with the Bible, declaring that each one of them, ignorant and learned, was perfectly qualified to decide upon every point of controversy. 

Q. What did he condescend to do for Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, in order to secure his support and protection? 

A. He permitted him to keep two wives at one and the same time. The name of the second was Margaret de Saal, who had been maid of honor to his lawful wife, Christina de Saxe. Nor was Luther the only Protestant Doctor who granted this monstrous dispensation from the law of God; eight of the most celebrated Protestant leaders signed, with their own hand, the filthy and adulterous document. 

Q. Does the whole history of Christianity furnish us with even one such scandalous dispensation derived from ecclesiastical authority? 

A. No; nor could such brutal profligacy be countenanced even for a moment, seeing that the Scripture is so explicit on the subject. Gen. ii, Matth. xix, Mark x, speak of two in one flesh, but never of three. But Luther and his brethren were guided, not by the letter of the Scripture, but by the corrupt passions, wishes, and inclinations of men. To induce their followers to swallow the new creed, they gave them, in return, liberty to gratify every appetite.

Q. If neither the author of Protestantism, nor his work itself, nor the means he adopted to effect his purpose, are from God, what are his followers obliged to? 

A. They are obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to seek earnestly and re-enter the true Church, which seduced by Luther, they abandoned: If they be sincere, God will aid them in their inquiry. 

Q. What is the situation of the man who does not at once acquit himself of this obligation? 

A. He is the victim of mortal heresy and schism; the thing he calls a church has no pastors lawfully sent or ordained; hence, he can receive none of the Sacraments declared in Scripture to be so necessary to salvation. 

Q. What think you of those (they are many) who are at heart convinced that the Catholic Church is the only true one, and are still such cowards as to dread making a public profession of their faith? 

A. "He," says our Saviour—Luke, ix chap., 26 ver., "who shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of Man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty." .

  Q. What think you of those who are inclined to Catholicism, but out of family considerations neglect to embrace it? 

A. Our Saviour, in the 10th chap. of St. Matth., tells such, that he who loves father or mother more than God, is unworthy of God. 

Q. What say you to those who become Protestants, or remain Protestants from motives of worldly gain or honor? 

A. I say with our Saviour, in the 8th chap. of St. Mark, "What will it avail a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?"

Well, we can see your are a newcomer here (Mar 15, 2013), and thus being ignorant of the vast refutation of Romanism over the years, much in response to the constant promotion of it, you resort to a 150+ year old rant that you would have to be part of a sect yourself to wholly affirm. And which not only misrepresents Luther (as well as many objective Roman Catholic views on him) while supposing evangelicals looks to him as a pope, but it reveals a blindness to the iniquity of Romanism that resulted in needed reformation,

Just some of the points at issue:

“No one can believe it, unless he be utterly ignorant of the true nature of religion,...” “They are full of indecencies very offensive to modesty,”

By the “true nature of religion” you mean Romanism, yet at the time of the Reformation it was Rome that was full of “indecencies very offensive to modesty.” And which has had its share of more since.

• Cardinal Bellarmine: "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,

• Erasmus, in his new edition of the “Enchiridion,” “What man of real piety does not perceive with sighs that this is far the most corrupt of all ages? When did iniquity abound with more licentiousness? When was charity so cold?” — “The Evolution of the English Bible: A Historical Sketch of the Successive,” p. 132 by Henry William Hamilton-Hoare

“the swarm of sordid and ignorant priests in the city, the harlots who are followed around by clerics and by the noble members of the cardinals’ households …” (A.G. Dickens, “The Counter Reformation,” pg. 100)

• “… honest manners should flourish in this city and church, mother and teacher of other churches … [yet] whores perambulate like matrons or ride on muleback, with whom noblemen, cardinals, and priests consort in broad daylight …” (cited in Denis R. Janz, “A Reformation Reader, Primary Texts with Introductions,” pg 406.

• In the same candid spirit is the following statement of de Mézeray, the historiographer of France: [Abrege’ Chronol. VIII. 691, seqq. a Paris, 1681.] “As the heads of the Church paid no regard to the maintenance of discipline, the vices and excesses of the ecclesiastics grew up to the highest pitch, and were so public and universally exposed as to excite against them the hatred and contempt of the people. We cannot repeat without a blush the usury, the avarice, the gluttony, the universal dissoluteness of the priests of this period, the licence and debauchery of the monks, the pride and extravagance of the prelates, and the shameful indolence, ignorance and superstition pervading the whole body .... These were not, I confess, new scandals: I should rather say that the barbarism and ignorance of preceding centuries, in some sort, concealed such vices; but,, on the subsequent revival of the light of learning, the spots which I have pointed out became more manifest, and as the unlearned who were corrupt could not endure the light through the pain which it caused to their eyes, so neither did the learned spare them, turning them to ridicule and delighting to expose their turpitude and to decry their superstitions.”

• Bossuet* in the opening statements of his “Histoire des Variations,” admits the frightful corruptions of the Church for centuries before the Reformation; and he has been followed in our own times by Frederic von Schlegel [Philosophy of History, 400, 401, 410, Engl. Transl. 1847.] and Möhler. [Symbolik, II. 31, 32, Engl. Transl.] While all of them are most anxious to prove that the Lutheran movement was revolutionary and subversive of the ancient faith, they are constrained to admit the universality of the abuses, which, in the language of Schlegel, “lay deep, and were ulcerated in their very roots.”

• At the time of the Reformation, the Catholic historian Paul Johnson stated, “Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families,..As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” ” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270) legit or not.

And the majority of Western RCs today support immortality and are are substantially less conservative than their evangelical counterparts.

in the first place, the author of the Reformation is not a man of God;

According to Rome, yet even if true that would not disallow what he taught any more than it does under Rome in which even popes were definitely not men of God as some were grossly immoral, whether sexually active or not. Even Leo X, pope during Luther's time, is seen as being homosexual by several modern historians.[8][9] Bishop and writer Paolo Giovio understood that Leo seemed to have "an improper love for some of his chamberlains."[10]

God himself has forbidden schism as a dreadful crime: Now I beseech you, brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no SCHISMS among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind and same judgment."

That is a lie, as the church actually began in schism from those who sat in the very seat of Moses, and the same apostle who wrote the above stated, "For there must be also heresies [schisms] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Corinthians 11:19)

And thus it is necessary to differ from and separate from Rome if one will truly continue in God's word, and in Protestantism one can separate from those who do not, while in Roman Catholicism a conservative Catholic is stuck with liberal Catholics which Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, which constitutes the the majority.

he told men to believe in the merits of Christ as certainly applied to them, and live as they pleased, to indulge every criminal passion, without even the restraints of modesty. 

Contrary to a gross misunderstanding to sola fide, or hyperbole which is used to support this premise, Luther and Reformers taught quite clearly that the saving faith which appropriates justification is one the effects obedience towards its Object, the risen Lord Jesus.

• Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

• In those therefore in whom we cannot realize good works, we can immediately say and conclude: they heard of faith, but it did not sink into good soil. For if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]

• “This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

More.

And as Cardinal Avery Dulles, states, “Catholics have often depicted Lutherans as teaching that justification is a mere declaration on God's part that leaves the justified person as much a sinner as before. They also suspect Lutherans of holding that the justified are neither required nor able to perform good works. This, as I understand it, has never been the position of the Lutheran churches.” (http://www.pcj.edu/journal/essays/dulles9-1.htm)

They [Protestants] are obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to seek earnestly and re-enter the true Church, ..He is the victim of mortal heresy he can receive none of the Sacraments declared in Scripture to be so necessary to salvation. 

This is plainly contradictory of Scripture as well as Roman Catholicism as understood by most, including PJ2, as the former clearly teaches that souls were “washed, sanctified and justified before being baptized or taking part in any Roman Catholic sacraments. (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9) And which Rome herself must allow for, while she also affirmed with Lutherans, "Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works." http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html However, there are contradictions with Scripture in what it all means.

LUMEN GENTIUM [1964] 16states:

• The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26)

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...

They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium; solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI, November 21, 1964 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

• "The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

"..Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood."Unitatis Redintegratio; 3,4; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

• All who have the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ's body, and therefore of the church.” (p. 59) — Cardinal Avery Dulles, A Church to Believe; http://www.crowhill.net/journeyman/Vol1No3/dulles.html

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

• 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

• Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books or established customs of a Church or ecclesial Community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of hisher own Community or Church. - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

• John Paul II: All Christian Communities know that, thanks to the power given by the Spirit, obeying that will and overcoming those obstacles are not beyond their reach. All of them in fact have martyrs for the Christian faith.137 Despite the tragedy of our divisions, these brothers and sisters have preserved an attachment to Christ and to the Father so radical and absolute as to lead even to the shedding of blood...

84....While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation...This universal presence of the Saints is in fact a proof of the transcendent power of the Spirit. It is the sign and proof of God's victory over the forces of evil which divide humanity.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

• John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente (# 37), Nov. 10, 1994: The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants, as Pope Paul VI pointed out in his Homily for the Canonization of the Ugandan Martyrs.(22)...Perhaps the most convincing form of ecumenism is the ecumenism of the saints and of the martyrs. The communio sanctorum speaks louder than the things which divide us. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_10111994_tertio-millennio-adveniente_en.html

► In addition, consistent with the Roman Catholic premise that she is the supreme authority, not Scripture, the old Catechism you rely upon provides fodder (as often seen on FR) for the unscriptural idea that the reason the main day for Christians worship is Sunday, not the 7th day, is due to Rome's self-proclaimed power to bind and to loose, for it states, “had she no such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her, she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority (Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism).”

This assertion evidences ignorance of Scripture, in which the only specific day the NT church is stated as meeting on was the first day of the week, while all the 10 commandments are reiterated in the NT saved for the command to keep holy the 7th day. See here.

► Question: Seeing as you must reject Scripture as your supreme authority, and the only interpretation of Scripture history or tradition that has any real authority is that which she gives it, and as fallible human reasoning cannot provide assurance, what is the basis for your assurance that Rome is the One True (assuredly infallible) Church® by which you implicitly submit to her?

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.