Posted on 10/30/2015 11:11:35 AM PDT by fishtank
Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ
By Eric Davis
OCTOBER 28, 2015
This Saturday, October 31, commemorates nearly 500 years since one of the greatest movements of God in church history; the Protestant Reformation. Up to the time of the Reformation, much of Europe had been dominated by the reign of Roman Catholicism. To the populace was propagated the idea that salvation was found under Rome and her system alone.
But as the cultural and theological fog cleared in Europe and beyond, God's people gained a clarity that had been mostly absent for centuries. The Reformers gained this clarity from keeping with a simple principle: sola scritpura, or, Scripture alone. As they searched the word of God, they discovered that Rome deviated radically on the most critical points of biblical Christianity. With one mind, God's people discerned from Scripture that, tragically, Roman Catholicism was a desecration to the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecripplegate.com ...
If the princes wanted to be free of the control of the church that demonstrates that the church sought control of the princes. The church established orthodoxy or legitimacy and if the church denied them legitimacy they could use Luther to do away with that practice or they could submit to the idea that the church was the source of legitimate authority.
Thomas Jefferson moved the prerogative to resist that power to confer legitimacy one step further to the people.
Luther ultimately led to the subjection of the national churches to the state.
With a bit of help from people like Robespierre, Karl Marx and Henry VIII. The point is that Luther loosened the grip of the medieval church on the psyche of man and set it free to behave responsibly or otherwise so long, in Luther's view, he adhered to the Scriptures. Thomas Jefferson, at least in the Declaration of Independence, exercised that liberty of conscience responsibly even though he was a devoted censer of the Scriptures.
So Thomas Jefferson, a quintessential man of the Enlightenment, took part of Luther's freedom of conscience and rejected that part which tied him to the Scriptures, which he despised.
“Here I stand I can do no other!”
Martin Luther was sitting when he invented Protestantism. I’m not allowed here to say where.
But verse 17 certainly implies that. If Scripture thoroughly equips someone, why look anywhere else? There is no need. If something else is needed, then Paul shouldn't have said "thoroughly". The underlying Greek means perfection. The English synonyms for thoroughly all capture this idea of sufficiency (utterly, completely, absolutely, entirely, totally, perfectly, comprehensively, etc.)
Maryz, that is the point at which your analogy breaks down. Your analogy of the nutritionist saying broccoli is good for you captures the essence of verse 16 but ignores verse 17. Paul total thought was captured in both verses which your analogy misses. Verse 16 says Scripture is good for you and verse 17 says it is all you need.
We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.
By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....
Regarding the list, my favorite is 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
So if a Catholic believes that burning heretics is against the will of the holy spirit, then they are under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication. Wow.
“So if a Catholic believes that burning heretics is against the will of the holy spirit, then they are under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication. Wow.”
Except that Martin Luther wholeheartedly supported the execution of those he called heretics whenever it suited him:
“That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it. ... Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine ... For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? ... Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches ... and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound ... to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders ... Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then ... we conclude that ... the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.”
Source: Dave Armstrong. “Pamphlet of 1536” in Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition (Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536)
“If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it. ... To the fire with them!”
Source: Dave Armstrong. Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition (Grisar, VI, 247; Table Talk [edited by Mathesius], 180; summer 1540)
“It is a duty to suppress the Pope by force.”
Source: Dave Armstrong, Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition (Grisar, VI, 245; EN, IV, 298)
“There are others who teach in opposition to some recognised article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture and is believed by good Christians all over the world, such as are taught to children in the Creed. ... Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers. ... If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master, namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman].”
Source: Martin Luther, Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530, (Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)
And Luther saw no problem with using force in religious matters (including excommunication):
“Men despise the Evangel and insist on being compelled by the law and the sword.”
Source: Dave Armstrong, Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition, (Grisar, VI, 262; EA, III, 39; letter to Georg Spalatin)
“Even though they do not believe, they must nevertheless ... be driven to the preaching, so that they may at least learn the outward work of obedience.”
Source: Dave Armstrong, Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition, (Grisar, VI, 262; in 1529)
“It is our custom to affright those who ... fail to attend the preaching; and to threaten them with banishment and the law. ... In the event of their still proving contumacious, to excommunicate them ... as if they were heathen.”
Source: Dave Armstrong, Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition,(Grisar, VI, 263; EN, IX, 365; letter to Leonard Beyer, 1533)
“Although excommunication in Pope-dom has been shamefully abused ... yet we must not suffer it to fall, but make right use of it, as Christ commanded.”
Source: Dave Armstrong, Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition, (Durant, 424-425)
“The spiritual powers ... also the temporal ones, will have to succumb to the Gospel, either through love or through force, as is clearly proved by all Biblical history.”
Source: Martin Luther, Letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 1522, (Janssen, III, 267; letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 1522) http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/Martin%20Luther.htm
So what does all that make Luther? At the very least he must be a hypocrite, right?
Martin Luther did not invent Protestantism. He merely spearheaded the revolution to erase centuries of error and outright heresy from the RC grip on Europe.
Sound doctrine exists in the Word and is available to all. The only thing “invented” is the tortuous contortions of man made “tradition”. Give me the Word to stand on, its all I need.
IOW, why look to the New Testament, which didn't exist as such at the time? Tanakh is sufficient? Is that why so many Protestants seem not to accept so much of the Gospels?
The problem is protestants accept too much of Rome’s gospel..
But scripture warned us about another Jesus and another gospel..
And Rome has both..
Obviously, much of what was to become the New Testament was already extant when Paul penned those words. The writings were widely-distributed and known in the early church.
The books of the Old Testament imply their own insufficiency. How could someone read the OT and not realize that it is incomplete? It all points to God's Messiah who had not yet come. It is a prophesy awaiting fulfillment. Clearly, the rest of the story was waiting to be written.
Protestants do not accept much of the New Testament? Pretty broad brush you're painting with. Faithful Protestants might not accept the fanciful Catholic interpretations of the four Gospels but that is a long ways from saying that they have rejected those texts.
Probably not the Gospels or the Apocalypse (Revelation) and probably not all of the Epistles. And the Canon had not yet been established. Even the Jewish Canon had not yet been established.
The books of the Old Testament imply their own insufficiency. How could someone read the OT and not realize that it is incomplete??
OK, so now you claim that the OT is insufficient. But these are the only scriptures Paul knew when he wrote to Timothy. So which is it? Sufficient or insufficient?
It all points to God's Messiah who had not yet come. It is a prophesy awaiting fulfillment.
Still is, according to the Jews, for whom the Canon is closed and who expect no further revelation except in the person of the Messiah. Much of the prophecy that Christians accept and interpret as referring to Christ simply is not considered Messianic prophecy by the Jews. And the Christian interpretation is not fully explicated in the NT.
Protestants do not accept much of the New Testament? Pretty broad brush you're painting with. Faithful Protestants might not accept the fanciful Catholic interpretations of the four Gospels but that is a long ways from saying that they have rejected those texts.
I said they ignore large chunks of the Gospels and twist others to fit their agenda.
That’s a hoot. Read some Catholic comments here.
It's exactly what Scripture teaches.
We have ONE mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.
We can come BOLDLY into His presence because of that.
God did not send Jesus to die for us so that we could be bound by yet another religious system that puts men under MORE bondage than the last one.
Jesus told people to follow HIM. Come unto me all you who are weary and heavy laden. Jesus personally makes the invitation to individuals to come to Him themselves.
Nobody in either heaven or hell is dead.
The soul never dies.
How do you know who’s in heaven now?
Except in that passage you quote, Jesus never transfers His authority.
He, using the authority that has been given to Him, gives the orders for us to obey.
Catholics call everything they don’t like *heresy*.
GMTA
How can he? He's not making the claim. YOU are. It's up to YOU to prove that Jesus is giving His disciples that authority.
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.