Posted on 08/04/2021 2:19:35 PM PDT by MurphsLaw
Those were all accurate statements. Where is the twist you claim?
Look at Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt
Karlstadt operated as a church reformer largely in his own right, and after coming in conflict with Luther, he switched his allegiance from the Lutheran to the Reformed camp, and later became a radical reformer before once again returning to the Reformed tradition.
From Spring 1524, Luther started to campaign against Karlstadt, denying his right to publish and preach without Luther’s authorization. In June, Karlstadt resigned as archdeacon. In July, Luther published the Letter to the Saxon Princes, in which he argued that Thomas Müntzer and Karlstadt agreed, and were both dangerous sectarians with revolutionary tendencies.
In September 1524 Karlstadt was exiled from Saxony by Frederick the Wise and George, Duke of Saxony. Luther also wrote against Karlstadt in his 1526 The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics.
What is the twist you claim?
Did you read the next sentence?
It goes “Such claims can be found virtually everywhere in corporate media like ...”
Namely, the article agrees with you that those are incorrect claims.
“Bible was never translated correctly until Tyndale, Wycliffe, King James edition”???
What are you talking about?
Tyndale and the KJV are in early modern English, dating to the 1600s.
Wycliffe wrote in Middle English, a language foreign to you. This is the Our father in middle English
Oure fadir şat art in heuenes
halwid be şi name;
şi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be şi wille don
in herşe as it is dounin heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis şat is oure synnys
as we foryeuen to oure dettouris şat is to men şat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion
but delyuere us from euhyl.
There are multiple other languages you know, besides Angleish
I’m not going to get into a lengthy debate, but let’s look at his summary of Wycliffe’s position in history...Wycliffe was a Bible translator who had the radical belief that everyone ought to have access to the Bible, and in their own language.
For that he was condemned, persecuted, etc., and after he died, his bones were dug up and burned. Just a foreshadowing of what would come in the English Reformation where St. (ahem) Thomas Moore burned Protestants at the stake.
And it wasn’t so much that Wycliffe wanted the state to be superior to the church, but that the state has a separate and defined realm of authority which is separate from the church, and the church shouldn’t be interfering in those matters.
Again, far from a radical opinion.
The twisting that I am referring to, generally, is the whole notion that somehow Roman Catholicism has been the great defender of the Bible, and that Protestants are, along with secularists, are responsible for the Bible being forgotten.
This is lunacy. And it’s propagandizing and twisting that only someone like Scott Hahn (a very intelligent former Protestant, who obviously has a huge axe to grind) is capable of.
No one is disputing that Luther had people in the more Reformed camp and especially the radically Reformed camp that he disagreed with. That’s not in dispute. It’s also entirely predictable in light of what Luther set in motion.
“while Rome requires RC rulers to exterminate all she deemed to be heretics or loose their authority.”
Another one of your blatantly false and non historical statements. They go well with the non biblical texts in the rest of your answers.
There was no such “requirement” so why are you making things up. Secular authorities saw having a common religious base as a good way to control the populace.
This was true too for the Calvinists in Netherlands, the Anglicans under Liz 1, the Lutherans under the Danish kings and the Catholic French kings.
Further afield the Safavids used it to forcibly converted iran to Shia. And the Omanis did the same with Ibadiism.
The only experiment in tolerance in a pre modern Abrahamuc religion country was in the Rzeczpospolita of Poland Lithuania where despite the majority being Catholic, all Faith’s were tolerated by the kings. That failed when, during the swedish invasion the Lutherans and Calvinists supported the Swedes.
Abrahamic religions didn’t lend themselves to multi religious states before the enlightenment era.
That’s because the authors are implicitly and at various points explicitly blaming Protestantism for the decline of belief in the Bible.
Classic projection.
halwid be şi name;
şi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be şi wille don
in herşe as it is dounin heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis şat is oure synnys
as we foryeuen to oure dettouris şat is to men şat han
synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion
but delyuere us from euhyl.
-----------------------------------------------
fascinating
Most non Catholics are fine. The Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans etc can discuss or even argue sensibly.
The problem are the sms, daniel, mg folks who believe that there are two covenants: one for Jews and one for gentiles. These folks believe in a white throne and that there are two gospels: the gospels we have are meant only for the jews and the gentiles got a different gospel called the gospel of grace. They believe there to be 2 covenants, 2 versions of the gospels and two churches. They are the pre tribulation rapture believers or Seventh day Adventists.
These folks go wild on these threads
Post 67
Hey, Elsie, how about a limerick?
What the heck am I missing
I can’t see it but I do hear the hissing
It follows me ‘round
And echoes the sound
Of everyone “solving” existing?
The solution is to open these threads under the caucus protection that the religion moderator gives.
Rather, it is your denial that there was no such “requirement” that is a blatantly false and non historical statement, which also goes well with biblical texts wrested in support of distinctive Catholic teachings in other of your answers. For there was indeed this “requirement,” so why are you making things up?
• Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:
Unless you are ignorant of such history, then it seems you must imagine that "Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure...to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church..But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated" does not mean Rome required "RC rulers to exterminate all she deemed to be heretics or loose their authority.” Or maybe you think "exterminate" never means kill.
Along with this is that of Rome requiring civil rulers to engaged in other means of punishment and compulsion under her claimed power of "coercive jurisdiction," such as, Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda,1252:
(29) The head of state or ruler must...The head of state or ruler must......The head of state or ruler must... The head of state or ruler must... The head of state or ruler must...
More.
"Secular authorities saw having a common religious base as a good way to control the populace. This was true too for the Calvinists in Netherlands, the Anglicans under Liz 1, the Lutherans under the Danish kings and the Catholic French kings. Further afield the Safavids used it to forcibly converted iran to Shia. And the Omanis did the same with Ibadiism. The only experiment in tolerance in a pre modern Abrahamuc religion country was in the Rzeczpospolita of Poland Lithuania where despite the majority being Catholic, all Faith’s were tolerated by the kings. That failed when, during the swedish invasion the Lutherans and Calvinists supported the Swedes."
Well, I myself said "Early Prots actually had to unlearn this abuse themselves."
There are open tags on religion forums. They tend to be more civil than the average shiiteshow free-for-all.
I challenge you to prove that Peter EVER went to Rome. We know Paul stood trial there twice. “Ignore the FACT that Peter went to Rome to challenge and replace the pagan disease that ruled the world back then with a New Covenant.”, you claim. Prove that claim.
This is why the church practically lies in ruins. Just throwing out traditions, teachings, doctrines of men that can NOT be substantiated by God’s word.
THAT is our final authority, not a church. Truth is hidden under piles of man’s false, fickle, feckless opinions. Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
No replies (till now) to this presumption, perhaps since posts by Catholics so predominate, while the owner has stated that "I don’t belong to any organized religion."
A favorite ploy is to conflate The Church of all born again believers, with the catholic org church, as if they are one and the same. THAT is a demonic lie which gets used here often.
Yes, they are saying that.
NO ONE I know who is born again says such a thing!
If someone said it to you, they are in error and do not know God's Word.
If someone said it to me, I would point them to the truth.
So, you should keep from making the blanket claim. It would be the honest thing to do.
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.