“Catholics continue to live under the delusion that everyone not catholic is running around with whatever Luther wrote.”
It’s funny you should make that claim in the same post you post this: “The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.”
After all when one thinks of how Luther twisted the translation of the Bible to serve his own “interpretative” needs, well, you should get the picture. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2801154/posts
And the reason why so many Catholics bring up Luther is simple - he is the father of Protestantism. Any historian can trace back Protestant sects and realize that they didn’t exist before 1517-1520. Sola scriptura, sola fide - these are Luther’s creations. Some Protestants deny that, of course, and even go to ridiculous lengths to establish some sort of historical pedigree for Protestantism (”Trail of Blood nonsense for example) but that’s all made up nonsense.
Protestantism, whether it is to be considered right or wrong, rests upon the shoulders of one man, one inventor, one creator, one father - and that’s Martin Luther.
Our founder was Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. Your ultimate founder was a brilliant, but possibly mentally ill, rebel monk named Martin Luther. That will never change.
If Christians relied only on Luther you might have a point. Fortunately we have the original texts to compare our translations to.
The history of the RCC and Protestantism has long been debated.
. Was Luther perfect? No.
Is the RCC with its practices of idolatry and a priesthood not found in the NT perfect? No.
The Christian is to base their belief on what we have in the Word. It is the only inspired word we have from God.
Exactly how Christian is your tag line?
Your ultimate Pope is Francis. You can only hope that it changes soon.
How could a bunch of folks; supposedly LED by the Holy Spirit; elect such a man?
That's Romish fantasy.
The Lord did not "found" the rotten parts of Roman Catholic theology. The Lord (nor the apostles) were not the inventors of hosts of things still within Catholicism today. That much has been well proven over and over and over again, although it can be difficult work, and much of it hinge upon things of subtlety, which can be as difficult to grasp as they are well protected by members of the cult. In past ages they'd murder a guy just for raising pointed criticisms. That's what we're dealing with here. They'd still murder critics today --- iF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT. Of that I am quite certain.
The sundry claims made in support of the accumulated theological novelty, inventions and error (interwoven and overlaid upon things that are quite right enough in many aspect, on their own) have been examined for a long time now.
What has been discovered by millions; the parts which cause the most division among 'other Christians not Catholic' and the RCC, are not *quite* what the RCC cracks them up to be in way of origination and conformance to the written Word.
Not as advertised. Fraudulent. In error. Significant portions === Man-made religious system. Built right on top of what the Lord had instituted, and that is what makes the man-made and introduced novelties and smotherings so grievous.
Men came along and distorted what Christ had instituted. That's the Church of Rome. Still. In many ways. She won't admit it. Cannot admit to having been in error. It would blow the fantasy she has constructed and has lived by since prior to Luther's complaints to smithereens. But some would make it through the explosion alive and intact. The ones who are among the Lord's adopted, and right now as we speak, just happen to be within [Roman] Catholicism. I'd like to think there's more than just a few of those.
But go ahead vladi. Yourself and many other FRomans. Keep posting your hatred of 'Protestants' for the world to see. It's just that much evidence Roman Catholicism does not bring sight to the blind, does not cure (or only rarely, and that as if by mistake) one of spiritual ills.
That Luther is the father of Protestantism and Jesus Christ is the father of Roman Catholicism is only true in the sense that that those who trace their heritage back to these source hold, to varying degrees, some things in conformity with what their claimed founders taught.
Luther was still somewhat Catholic, and Protestantism did not even hold to his (non-binding) canon of Scripture, and overall moved away, if not totally, from the unscriptural teachings of Rome that Luther yet held to.
Meanwhile, although SS is indeed Scriptural, rightly and reasonably understood, that, without excluding other helps, including natural revelation and the Spirit's illumination and guidance (at the least during the offering), it alone is the wholly inspired/infallible standard for faith and obedience, to which the authority of oral preaching was and is subject to testing by.
Reformers often invoked ECFs for support for instance, but as subject to Scripture as supreme, versus the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. While from the beginning God always provided what was sufficient for what He required of them, He did progressively added more conflative and complementary revelation. But as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
While SS can enjoin obedience to oral preaching under the premise that it is Scriptural, as the apostle's was substantiated by and found to be by readers of it, they do not presume do speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation, which even Rome does not presume to claim.
And that Scripture is sufficient in its formal and material senses, both formally providing the clearly revelation of the gospel message and revelation needed for growth in grace, as well as materially providing for the church, and its teaching office, and synods, etc.. As well as for believers discerning both men and writings of God as being so, and thus for the establishment of a canon of Scripture.
Sola fide is also Scriptural, in that is it faith that is counted/imputed for righteousness, justifying the unGodly (Rm. 4:4,5) and is what purifies the heart (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) resulting in one being positionally sweated with Christ, (Eph. 2:6) but which must be a effectual living faith to be salvific, with works continually justifying one as being a believer, (Heb. 6:9; Ja, 2:14-26) and to such is promised salvation (Mk. 16:16; Rm. 10:9-13) and rewards for faith/obedience, (Mt. 25:31-40; ; Heb. 10:35) though man can take no credit for them, as both enablement and motivation is of God. (1Chrn. 29:14)
Thus while forgiveness is promised (thru Peter) to whosoever believes and regeneration realized thereby, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) it is also promised to those who would repent/believe and be baptized, (Acts 2;38) for the former begat the latter, like as forgiveness and healing. (Mk. 2)
Other distinctives that Scripture teaches include baptism requiring wholehearted repentant faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)
and with believers going to be with the Lord after death or His return, versus RC Purgatory, with the only transformative change after this life being the resurrection, and the suffering being that of the judgment seat of Christ.
And of prayer to Heaven only being to God.
NT pastors being normally married,
and part of the general priesthood of all believers, and not a separate sacerdotal class with the same distinctive title as OT priests,
and with believers being able to come together to eat the Lord's supper without this distinctive sacerdotal priesthood, and without it being the enthroned central priestly ritual around which all else revolved in the life of the NT church.
More can be added, as well as deviations (women pastors, etc.) but such Scriptural distinctives attests to the Lord Jesus being the Father of such faith, while as for Roman Catholicism an honest examination of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) reveals that the Catholic distinctives as simply manifestly not seen, and that she stands in substantial contrast to it.
Meaning that (pardon some redundancy) the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 4:4; 19:4-5; 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation of the body “unto whom were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) but who wrongly supposed lineage made them correct, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:33) and thus the authenticity of Truth claims and oral preaching of the word must be subject to the only wholly God-inspired substantive body of Truth, the Scriptures. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28)
In the light of which, what the NT church in Scripture (as seen in Acts onward, which shows how the NT church understood the gospels) did NOT profess/teach practice were such things as:
• Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers, with none being addressed to anyone else but God, who alone is shown able to hear all such from Heaven. Only pagans prayed to invisible heavenly beings than God, as the Spirit is faithful to record.
• Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods. Only pagans burned incense unto the queen of heaven: Jeremiah 44:16-17), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven if they died at the time of the baptism, but which thus means that the same (due to the outworking of their remaining sinful nature) usually have to later endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven.
• Nor were novenas made to obtain indulgences to escape RC purgatory, as instead by effectual faith true believers are already accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)
And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture.
• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme central practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved. For instead it is only manifestly described in one epistle (besides "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) and in which the Catholic Eucharist is not evident, but the church is the focus as the "one bread" and the body of Christ, purchased with the sinless shed blood of Christ, whose death, and the love behind it, the church is supposed to declare by sharing food in that communal meal. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) More , by God's grace.
• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests" whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin. Neither presbuteros or episkopos are even called “hiereus," the distinctive word translated "priest," which conflation is the result of ecclesiastical evolution, and NT pastors are nowhere even described as officiating at the Lord's supper and dispensing the elements, much less offering them as a sacrifice for sins.
• Nor is this Catholic function taught as being a primary or unique function of the clergy, who instead are exhorted to preach the word, (2 Timothy 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) with the word of God, which is what is called spiritual "milk" and "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:13; 1 Peter 2:2) by which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) and then by which they are "nourished" (1Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
• That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes.
• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy. Instead both apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5) and NT clergy were normatively married with children, which evidenced his qualifications for the pastorate, (1 Timothy 3;1-7) and with celibacy being a gift that not all have, ((1 Corinthians 7:7) and it is only wrongly presumed that all or almost all clergy do.
• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.
• Choosing more apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (in order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, thus no politics. (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)
• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.
More to see by God's grace.