Martin Luther: Defender of Erroneous Conscience

Trial 1: I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.

Trial 2: If the number of bishops and universities should be so material as your lordship seems to think, then I see little cause, my lord, why that should make any change in my conscience. For I have no doubt that, though not in this realm, but of all those well learned bishops and virtuous men that are yet alive throughout Christendom, they are not fewer who are of my mind therein. But if I should speak of those who are already dead, of whom many are now holy saints in heaven, I am very sure it is the far greater part of them who, all the while they lived, thought in this case the way that I think now. And therefore am I not bound, my lord, to conform my conscience to the council of one realm against the General Council of Christendom.

The first, from the friar Martin Luther, asserts the primacy of conscience over the universal consent of the Church and the tradition.

The second, from a laymen Thomas More, notes the agreement of conscience to the faith of Christendom, the history of the Church, and the saints of Heaven.

Why are these appeals to conscience significant? I think Belloc is fundamentally correct in his assessment of the nature of Protestantism as a denial of religious authority, resting in a visible Church:

The Protestant attack differed from the rest especially in this characteristic, that its attack did not consist in the promulgation of a new doctrine or of a new authority, that it made no concerted attempt at creating a counter-Church, but had for its principle the denial of unity. It was an effort to promote that state of mind in which a “Church” in the old sense of the word-that is, an infallible, united, teaching body, a Person speaking with Divine authority-should be denied; not the doctrines it might happen to advance, but its very claim to advance them with unique authority.

The individual quickly emerged to fill the vacuum left by the Church, as the dominant religious factor in the modern period.

Martin Luther: Revolutionary, Not Reformer In this year of the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, we have to take stock of the legacy of the renegade, Catholic priest, Martin Luther. What were his intentions? It is commonly alleged, even among Catholics, that he had the noble aim of reforming abuses within the Church.

In fact, Martin Luther discovered his revolutionary, theological positions about a year before he posted his 95 theses. Probably in the year 1516, while lecturing on Romans at the seminary in Wittenburg, Luther had a pivotal experience, which shaped the way he viewed the Christian faith. Essentially, his “tower experience,” resolved his difficulty of conscience. He saw God and His commandments as a moral threat:

But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn’t be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, “Isn’t it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?” This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant.

Reading Romans 1, while in the tower of his monastery, Luther suddenly saw the resolution of his troubled conscience through faith: “All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light.”

As we see in Trent’s teaching on justification and the Joint Declaration of Faith, there is nothing wrong with the realization that righteousness (same word as justification) comes through faith alone, moved by the grace of God. The problem is the re-reading of Scripture and all of the Christian tradition in a different light through this realization. Luther’s troubled conscience and experience of faith led him eventually (as it took him a while to work it out) to reject many of the Sacraments, books of the Bible, and the Church’s authority all in the name of liberty of conscience. A great schism would follow from Luther’s personal experience.

The Significance of Luther’s Teaching on Conscience No doubt reforms were needed in the Catholic Church in 1517. Contrary to popular opinion however, Luther primarily sought to spread his understanding of the Gospel, not to correct abuses. Catholic practices became abuses precisely because they contradicted his tower experience of 1516.

One of Luther’s early tracts, Appeal to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), lays out the implications of his view in more detail:

Besides, if we are all priests, as was said above, and all have one faith, one Gospel, one sacrament, why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is correct or incorrect in matters of faith? What becomes of the words of Paul in I Corinthians 2:15: “He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man,” II Corinthians 4:13: “We have all the same Spirit of faith”? Why, then, should not we perceive what squares with faith and what does not, as well as does an unbelieving pope?

All these and many other texts should make us bold and free, and we should not allow the Spirit of liberty, as Paul calls Him, to be frightened off by the fabrications of the popes, but we ought to go boldly forward to test all that they do or leave undone, according to our interpretation of the Scriptures, which rests on faith, and compel them to follow not their own interpretation, but the one that is better….

Thus I hope that the false, lying terror with which the Romans have this long time made our conscience timid and stupid, has been allayed.

Luther never condoned license (though he did condone Philip of Hesse’s bigamy), as he said his conscience was captive to the Word of God, but he did separate the decision of his conscience from the authority of the Church. This proved absolutely foundational for Protestantism and modern, religious experience.

Father of the Modern World The claim that Luther stands at a crucial moment between medieval Christendom and the modern world is not contentious. This is need for care, however. His separation of faith and reason and insistence on the spiritual nature of the Church, in my opinion, did quicken the advance to secularism. However, Luther did not directly intend the creation of the modern, secular world as know it. Yet his stand on conscience and his individualistic interpretation of faith did lend itself to modern individualism, which I would even say is the heart of modern culture.

Cardinal Ratzinger suggested that Luther stood at the forefront of the modern movement, focused on the freedom of the individual. I recommend looking at this piece, “Truth and Freedom” further, but his central insight on Luther follows:

There is no doubt that from the very outset freedom has been the defining theme of that epoch which we call modern…. Luther’s polemical writing [On the Freedom of the Christian] boldly struck up this theme in resounding tones…. At issue was the freedom of conscience vis-à-vis the authority of the Church, hence the most intimate of all human freedoms…. Even if it would not be right to speak of the individualism of the Reformation, the new importance of the individual and the shift in the relation between individual conscience and authority are nonetheless among its dominant traits (Communio 23 [1996]: 20).

These traits have survived and at times predominate our contemporary religious experience. The sociologist, Christian Smith, has noted in his study of the faith life of emerging adults, Souls in Transition, that an evangelical focus on individual salvation has been carried over into a new religious autonomy. He claims that…

the places where today’s emerging adults have taken that individualism in religion basically continues the cultural trajectory launched by Martin Luther five centuries ago and propelled along the way by subsequent development of evangelical individualism, through revivalism, evangelism and pietism…. Furthermore, the strong individualistic subjectivism in the emerging adult religious outlook—that “truth” should be decided by “what seems right” to individuals, based on their personal experience and feelings—also has deep cultural-structural roots in American evangelicalism.

Luther’s legacy clearly points toward individualism in religion, setting up a conflict with religious authority and tradition. The average Western Christian probably follows his central assertion that one must follow one’s own conscience over and against the Church.

Luther’s View of Conscience in the Catholic Church The key issue in debating Luther’s legacy on conscience in the Catholic Church entails whether the teachings of the Church are subordinate to one’s own conscience or whether conscience is bound by the teaching of the Church.

I know an elderly Salesian priest who told me with all sincerity that the purpose of Vatican II was to teach us that we could decide what to believe and how to live according to our conscience. This is clearly the “Spirit of Vatican II,” as Gaudium et Spes, while upholding the dignity of conscience, enjoins couples in regards to the transmission of life: “But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel” (50). Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, holds together two crucial points, stating that one cannot “be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience,” (3) as well as that “in the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church” (14). The Council upheld the dignity of conscience as well as its obligation to accept the authority of the Church.

The misinterpretation of the Council’s teaching on conscience as license found its first test case just three years after the Council closed in Humanae Vitae. Theologians such as Bernard Härring and Charles Curran advocated for the legitimacy of dissent from the encyclical on the grounds of conscience. The Canadian Bishops, in their Winnipeg Statement, affirmed: “In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assure that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”

Conscience also stands at the center of the current controversy over the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. I’ve already written on how Amoris stands in relation to the Church’s efforts to inculturate the modern world in relation to conscience. Cardinal Caffarra claimed that the fifth dubium on conscience was the most important. He stated further: “Here, for me, is the decisive clash between the vision of life that belongs to the Church (because it belongs to divine Revelation) and modernity’s conception of one’s own conscience.” Recently, the German bishops, following those of Malta, have decided: “We write that—in justified individual cases and after a longer process—there can be a decision of conscience on the side of the faithful to receive the Sacraments, a decision which must be respected.”

In light of the current controversy on conscience, it is troubling that Luther is now upheld as genuine reformer. The most troubling is from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in its Resources for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and throughout the year 2017: “Separating that which is polemical from the theological insights of the Reformation, Catholics are now able to hear Luther’s challenge for the Church of today, recognising him as a ‘witness to the gospel’ (From Conflict to Communion 29). And so after centuries of mutual condemnations and vilification, in 2017 Lutheran and Catholic Christians will for the first time commemorate together the beginning of the Reformation.” The Vatican also announced a commemorative stamp (which to me sounds like the United States issuing a stamp commemorating the burning the White House by British troops).

Pope Francis has spoken of Luther several times in the past year, including in an inflight press conference returning from Armenia: “I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct.” In response I ask, what did Luther reform? Francis pointed to two things in his journey to Sweden. The Reformation “helped give greater centrality to sacred scripture in the Church’s life,” but it did so by advocating the flawed notion of sola scriptura. Francis also pointed to Luther’s concept of sola gratia, which “reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to any human response, even as he seeks to awaken that response.” While the priority of God’s initiative is true and there are similarities to Catholic teaching in this teaching (that faith is a free gift that cannot be merited), Luther denied our cooperation with grace, our ability to grow in sanctification and merit, and that we fall from grace through mortal sin. Francis also noted, while speaking to an ecumenical delegation from Finland: “In this spirit, we recalled in Lund that the intention of Martin Luther 500 years ago was to renew the Church, not divide Her.” Most recently he spoke of how we now know “how to appreciate the spiritual and theological gifts that we have received from the Reformation.”

It is true that Martin Luther did not want to divide the Church. He wanted to reform the Church on his own terms, which was not genuine reform. Luther said he would follow the Pope if the Pope taught the pure Gospel of his conception: “The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead.” Further he accuses the corruption of conscience by listening to the Church as opposed to Scripture: “But the papists, against their own consciences, say, No; we must hear the Church.” This points us back to the crucial issue of authority, pointed out by Belloc.

Conclusion: More Over Luther We should not celebrate the Reformation, because we cannot celebrate the defense of erroneous conscience held up against the authority of the Church. As St. Thomas More rightly said in his “Dialogue on Conscience,” taken down by his daughter Meg: “But indeed, if on the other side a man would in a matter take away by himself upon his own mind alone, or with some few, or with never so many, against an evident truth appearing by the common faith of Christendom, this conscience is very damnable.” He may have had Luther in mind.

More did not stand on his own private interpretation of the faith, but rested firmly on the authority of Christendom and, as Chesterton put it, the democracy of the dead: “But go we now to them that are dead before, and that are I trust in heaven, I am sure that it is not the fewer part of them that all the time while they lived, thought in some of the things, the way that I think now.”

More is a crucial example of standing firm in a rightly formed conscience. We should remember why he died and not let his witness remain in vain. He stood on the ground of the Church’s timeless teaching, anchored in Scripture and the witness of the saints. If we divorce conscience from authority, we will end in moral chaos. As Cardinal Ratzinger asked in his lucid work, On Conscience: “Does God speak to men in a contradictory manner? Does He contradict Himself? Does He forbid one person, even to the point of martyrdom, to do something that He allows or even requires of another?” These are crucial questions we must face.

Rather than celebrating the defender of erroneous conscience, let’s remember and invoke the true martyr of conscience, who died upholding the unity of the faith.

In my first paragraph, I expressly said, “But, if you could have found proof in your version of the Bible (that you apparently credit your predecessors for preserving), to justify a ‘no’ answer to one or more of the first four questions, I believe that you would have.”

(This time I hope you didn’t miss the “FIRST FOUR questions” part)

Then, you go on the predictable rant against sola scriptura, but in a strange reversal (but one I was hoping for), go right ahead and answer the two penalty questions:

**No.**

**Yes.**

See how easy that was? You didn’t go into an anti sola scriptura dodge in either one of those cases. If you had been taught contrary to those scriptures, I’m convinced that you would not have answered them in the correct fashion that you did.

**WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS YOUR ARE INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING MINE**

I never said I wouldn’t answer yours. I said I wanted you to answer the first four questions. All of my questions came from the same scriptures that you claim your predecessors decided were inspired. Is that a problem? You have no problem holding tight to scriptures that pertain to the Lord’s Supper, using those to teach remission of sins. And then, somehow the closing statement found in John 6:63 “..it is the spirit that quickeneth..”, is not so important. But from the scriptures that you say your predecessors preserved we find more about that spiritual experience:

When speaking of the coming Comforter, the Spirit of truth, that would dwell in them, the Lord told his disciples, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20

But, now that you have properly answered my two penalty questions, you have admitted to remission of sins in baptism, and that it doesn’t wear off. But, when looking at Peter using the keys found in Acts 2:38, his presence at Samaria for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and the same at Cornelius’ house, we don’t find him teaching remission of sins through the Lord’s Supper.

The rock? He was right there when the Lord made the ‘rock’ declaration. He should know better than anyone else what the Lord was saying.

Providing lists of ‘scribes and pharisees’ that have decided what is doctrine, and what is not doctrine, does not rescue you from your predicament. You have chosen to follow men that have taught contrary to the very scriptures that they are credited with preserving. (Never mind that Egypt preserved Abram; the Philistines, Isaac; ravens, Elijah; and Egypt, the Christ child.)

No, there is no such thing as an inspired (and I’ve never quoted or used as doctrine) table of contents.

And whether or not Matthew wrote the gospel named after him doesn’t seem to stop you from using scriptures found in it.

Does the book of Judith add or subtract from the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ? No. Same with the Maccabees (sp).

Intellectually dishonest?

Picking and choosing scriptures, from the totality that you claim your predecessors preserved, and disregarding others, would seem intellectually dishonest.

The first four questions are still there for you to answer.

You make a variety of assertions regarding Catholic interpretation that simply are NOT true:

“the Catholic version that says, on the one hand, that they don’t contradict each other, yet on the other treats them as if they do”

“These are FROM PAUL and SUPPORT JAMES.” It always seems to be about Paul supporting James, and not the two supporting each other. What’s more, what James wrote is taken to mean WORKS SALVATION,

Protestants pretend Catholics ascribe “works salvation” and this has NEVER been true.
Of course Paul and James support each other!
I’m not the one trying to pretend they’re at odds.
That was Luther’s pretense for ranking James as “an Epistle of straw”.
My phrasing was only to assert that James isn’t hanging out alone as describing the necessity of works through faith.(James 2:14-26)

In your attempt to refute Catholic interpretation of Romans 3:28, you ignore my reference to 3:29

“Catholic position also claims that Protestants are only about “cheap grace” - antinomianism”

No! This is how Catholics characterize Luther’s position:
-Justification is a free gift of God received by grace alone though faith alone.
-We appropriate salvation through accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior.
-The fruit of a “saved” person is good works, but play no part in receiving or keeping one’s salvation.
-Baptism is an outward symbol of an inward commitment and is not required for salvation.
-Once saved, we cannot “lose” our salvation. We are assured of eternal life with God regardless of sinful actions after becoming “saved”. Sin can only harm our relationship with Christ not our salvation.

The Catholic position based upon Scripture is:
- Justification is by Christ alone, through grace alone, by a living faith working in love, only and always by the Holy Spirit.
- The “instrument” of salvation is the sacrament of baptism, preceded by faith and repentance which are themselves “graces” of God with which we cooperate.
- Baptism truly frees us from original sin and cleanses us from all personal sins.
- Since God has created us as “free” beings we can freely receive his gifts of grace and even reject them, even to the point of “losing” the life of God in us and therefore our salvation.

“it conveys the sense of the text”

Nice excuse for the offense.

“We have many other verses that back up and reinforce that it is faith ALONE in Jesus Christ ALONE by the grace of God ALONE that we are saved.”

And how do those isolated and out of context verses stack up against:

James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Let’s review other passages that clarify that justification through “faith alone” is not the message of Scripture.

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Here we see that forgiveness is an active work and not simply “faith flowing from grace”, and that act of forgiveness is also required.

James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. 23 For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror;

In this instance we can see those having faith alone as being “hearers of the word and not doers”, much in the same way as see those crying ‘Lord, Lord’ in the verse below:

Matt 7:21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

One of the most frequently used biblical citations used in Protestant circles is Ephesians 2:8-9 as presented here:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

What is noteworthy upon reflection is how verse 10 clarifies the two preceding verses. When it is included in proper context, we see that works are not antithetical to faith, but rather, the necessary “outworking” of it. In verse 8 and 9, St. Paul is stressing the ‘first cause’ of grace and faith, and the futility of mere human works not preceded by grace. But in verse 10 he teaches that good works ordained by God, and always proceeding from His grace, are equally part of salvation and justification. The whole passage is more in accord with Catholic both-and thinking than with the Protestant sola perspective.

“In my first paragraph, I expressly said, “But, if you could have found proof in your version of the Bible (that you apparently credit your predecessors for preserving), to justify a ‘no’ answer to one or more of the first four questions, I believe that you would have.””

Your premise there is simply wrong. You demonstrated that yourself in the answers you posted to my questions.

“(This time I hope you didn’t miss the “FIRST FOUR questions” part)”

There was no missing either then or now. I choose what I will and will not answer.

“Then, you go on the predictable rant against sola scriptura, but in a strange reversal (but one I was hoping for), go right ahead and answer the two penalty questions:”

There was no rant. It was a simple demonstration that fully shows how sola scriptura fails. And you helped by showing how sola scriptura is a failure and is always destined to be a failure.

“See how easy that was? You didn’t go into an anti sola scriptura dodge in either one of those cases.”

They were questions not cases.

“If you had been taught contrary to those scriptures, I’m convinced that you would not have answered them in the correct fashion that you did.”

I have never been taught anything that is contrary to scripture – I am not a Protestant.

“I never said I wouldn’t answer yours. I said I wanted you to answer the first four questions.”

And I answered questions. And you?

“All of my questions came from the same scriptures that you claim your predecessors decided were inspired.”

Not exactly.

“Is that a problem?”

Technically it’s an inaccurate statement you made. Do you know why?

“You have no problem holding tight to scriptures that pertain to the Lord’s Supper, using those to teach remission of sins.”

False.

“And then, somehow the closing statement found in John 6:63 “..it is the spirit that quickeneth..”, is not so important.”

False. Show me where I said it was “not so important”. Can you do that or will you continue to post things that are complete fabrications like that?

“But from the scriptures that you say your predecessors preserved we find more about that spiritual experience: When speaking of the coming Comforter, the Spirit of truth, that would dwell in them, the Lord told his disciples, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20”

And? Are you trying to make an actual point?

“But, now that you have properly answered my two penalty questions, you have admitted to remission of sins in baptism, and that it doesn’t wear off.”

Wait. Since it is obvious that many Protestant attackers of Christ’s Church have reading comprehension problems I think you should look at EXACTLY what you originally posted. You posted: “Does the remission of sins wear off?” And that was in regard to baptism. And I answered, “No.” Let’s just make sure that is here in this post again before we get to your next point:

“But, when looking at Peter using the keys found in Acts 2:38, his presence at Samaria for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and the same at Cornelius’ house, we don’t find him teaching remission of sins through the Lord’s Supper.”

One second your talking about “you have admitted to remission of sins in baptism, and that it doesn’t wear off” and the next second you’re talking about Peter, the keys, Acts 2:38, Samaria, the holy Ghost, Cornelius’ house, and “we don’t find him teaching remission of sins through the Lord’s Supper” as if there is some sort of logical consistency to your rambling. There isn’t. What EXACTLY are you trying to say? Is that last comment some sort of rejoinder to my “No” about “remission of sins” wearing off in baptism?

“The rock?”

So now you’re talking about Matthew 16? Is there some sort of logical order to your comments here? What is it? Pass me the decoder ring you’re using because otherwise these are just non sequitur comments from you. Are you responding to my questions? What?

“He was right there when the Lord made the ‘rock’ declaration. He should know better than anyone else what the Lord was saying.”

In regard to what? As opposed to what? How about some actual order to your comments?

“Providing lists of ‘scribes and pharisees’ that have
decided what is doctrine, and what is not doctrine, does not rescue you from your predicament.”

I’m not in one to start with. And what “scribes and Pharisees” are you now babbling about? Is there any order at all to your comments? Are you stoned or something?

“You have chosen to follow men that have taught contrary to the very scriptures that they are credited with preserving.”

No, I’m not a Protestant. I’m Catholic. Jesus is the God-man I follow.

“(Never mind that Egypt preserved Abram; the Philistines, Isaac; ravens, Elijah; and Egypt, the Christ child.)”

Wow. You ate the worm didn’t you?

“No, there is no such thing as an inspired (and I’ve never quoted or used as doctrine) table of contents.”

And? Doesn’t that mean sola scriptura will naturally be haphazard to say the least? After all how do you KNOW what belongs in the Bible?

“And whether or not Matthew wrote the gospel named after him doesn’t seem to stop you from using scriptures found in it.”

Since I am not a sola scripturist the problem isn’t mine.

“Does the book of Judith add or subtract from the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ? No. Same with the Maccabees (sp).”

No what? What you just said is like saying something like this: “Is the house big or small? No.” No what? And since you’ve probably never read Judith or Maccabees how would you know whether it adds or subtracts to anything?

“Intellectually dishonest?”

Your methods sure seem to be. Again, since you’ve probably never read Judith or Maccabees how would you know whether it adds or subtracts to anything?

“Picking and choosing scriptures, from the totality that you claim your predecessors preserved, and disregarding others, would seem intellectually dishonest.”

And you don’t “pick and choose”? No, you pick and choose but push the idea that you actually look at the totality of scripture. . . which you don’t actually do as you deny the deuterocanonicals, for instance.

“The first four questions are still there for you to answer.”

Seriously, what’s the point if you twist so many things as you do? I can’t even tell if it would matter if I answer your questions since they’re based on a false premise and you can’t seem to respond with any logical order.

Here are some examples:

“In the scriptures, you will not find Jesus Christ, or his apostles ever use the phrase, “God the Son”. Is that truth?”
And? Is Jesus not God’s Son? God the Father says so. You know where, right? And is Jesus NOT divine?

“In the scriptures, you will not find Jesus Christ, or his apostles ever use the phrase, “God the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)”. Is that truth?”

Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit is not divine?

“In the book of Acts, where detailed stories of water baptisms are found, the name of Jesus is mentioned, but not the triune formula. Is that truth?”

Does it have to be mentioned in Acts since it is already mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew? And what is the name of Jesus other than Jesus? Do you know?

“In the four gospels and the book of Acts, we find actual occurrences of mortal people praying to no one other than God. Is that truth?”

And? You know when the gospels took place, right? How about Acts?

“In Ephesians 2:20, Paul tells the saints (1:1), that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. Is that truth?”

And? Does that change anything else that is discussed in scripture?

“In 1Peter 2:5-8, Peter declares Jesus Christ to be the chief cornerstone. Is that truth?”

Again, and? Does that change anything else that is discussed in scripture?

“Lastly, If the mass is consumed for eternal life, is once enough? If so, then why continue to consume it repeatedly? If once is not enough, then why is that? Does it not have eternal power?”

And that I already answered those five questions – and you refused to comment on my answer. Here’s what I wrote:

You asked: “Lastly, If the mass is consumed for eternal life, is once enough?

I answered: It can be - for those who only need it once. God, in His wisdom, however, foresaw that people would sin so He gave us the sacraments to aid us. The sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist can be received more than once and should be.

And then you refused to comment on that.

You asked: “If so, then why continue to consume it repeatedly?”

I answered: “Why read the Bible more than once? Why pray more than once? Why tell your wife you love her more than once? Jesus said to do this (meaning the Eucharist) in remembrance of Him. He never said, “Do it only once.””

And then you refused to comment on that.

You asked: “If once is not enough, then why is that?”

I answered: “Again, for some, once may be enough, for most it is not because of our own sinful choices. Again, is reading the Bible ONCE enough for YOU? Is praying ONCE enough for YOU?”

And then you refused to comment on that.

You asked: “Does it not have eternal power?”

I answered: “Yes, it does. But we don’t. God gave us free will. We choose to sin. God’s Word has eternal power - but I bet you read the Bible more than once, right?”

And then you refused to comment on that.

If you’re not even going to respond to may answers why should I bother answering? You must not even care about your own questions.

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.