Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
How's that ecumemism thing going, by the way? Looks like they are willing to beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks. But their brooms? That's a real sticking point with "holy men"..
Obviously Martin Luther changed his mind when he got a little more educated about it...
Actually, while this quote is one of many often invoked by RCs (who likely do not know the context of them, nor do it, and so i just looked this one up myself) to support their premise that being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ (which they contend Rome is) means that they alone are its infallible interpreters (while competing with the Orthodox and others.
However, this quote is actually part of a polemic by Luther who responds Scripturally by reminding us that the Jews, who are explicitly stated to be the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, were not the assuredly infallible interpreters of it, nor was their office perpetual, though God promised not to utterly forsake the seed of David (Ps. 89:28-37) but were replaced by men who were rejected by those who legitimately sat in the seat of Moses. And which principle Luther applies to the Reformation. I myself have answered on this without ever having read Luther here, and which i believe the Lord showed me, who can raise up from stones children to Abraham, (Mt. 3:9) and stones to continue to build His church of the living God. (1Pt. 2:4,5
See the blog of James Swan here on this, and also here on many other often-used quote by Luther, or which are purported to be such
Thanks be to God for His mercy and grace in Christ
I cannot find that verse either, but i can get in the flesh in contentions also. Matter of degrees.
Imagine that.
Do they preach love one another ?
Ahhh, it’s just a tactic for the Catholic church to justify control of Scripture and anyone who believes it.
The thinking being that if they can claim to be the authors of the Bible, then anyone who believes it and recognizes the authority of the Bible must of necessity believe and recognize the authority of the RCC, which allegedly gave the world the Bible.
Wishful thinking on their part but it just isn’t so. The Catholic church can’t claim that Scripture gives it its authority if it also claims that it gave the world Scripture. The only way the Catholic church could claim Scripture gives it its authority is if Scripture is outside the purview of the church, standing alone as its own authority. THEN is can impart authority to something or someone else.
But for the RCC to claim that it wrote the Bible and then claim that the Bible it wrote gives it its authority is pulling itself up by its boot straps. It’s nothing more than an exceedingly transparent attempt at a power grab.
Why not? I don't read almost ANYBODY's posts that are that long, no matter whose *side* they're on.
The only one I'll give an effort to is daniel's. Other than those, I just scan them to see if there's anything new or interesting, and usually there's not
Anything anyone has to say can be easily broken down into bite sized pieces.
No they had their martyr suits on and it was their testimonies that brought on the reformation.
Too bad that to many of the Protestants didn’t shake off so many of the other errors of Rome including it’s replacement theology that came straight from the pit of hell .
Good question. But i think there was a good reason that the church was scattered abroad after their discipleship by the apostles. (Acts 6:4) Institutionalization can happen to anyone of us.
What a terrible thing to suffer under the guilt of the Catholic Church. Again and again we are told in scripture that it’s impossible to live under the law. True Christians live under the security of knowing that Christ has paid the price in full. True Christians are covered by the blood of Christ. True Christians already appear before the Throne of God clothed in the perfection of Christ.
John 17:23: Christ Himself prays to His Father: "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one.
Galatians 2:20: Paul speaks of himself and all true Christians: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. It’s an awful, awful thing to be taught by the Catholic Church. To deny the complete price Christ paid. Those who follow the teaching of the CC put themselves back under the law.
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Certainly an answer for those who wonder how our future sins that we haven't repented of yet can be forgiven.
I still wonder what Catholics do about those unintentional sins they sin that they don't repent of because they are unaware of them. Or if they forget about a sin they committed and don't repent of it for that reason.
“The early brush arbor churches were, shall we say, rather remarkable in that the laiety elevated one of their number to lead the service. Such formal structure as they had was purely derived from the Bible itself.”
Oh yes. No structure in the church in Acts, whatsoever.
You might want to check that again. The Apostles were the leaders of the Church, and the Apostles appointed new leaders. Pretty clear to me. Priests, yep. Deacons, yep. Bishops, yep. All there in the bible.
That’s a good question.
One of the things you ask for in absolution is for absolution from the sins you have confessed, as well as sins you may have committed but forgotten.
For confession to be valid, you have to confess the ones you can remember to the best of your ability. Forgetting a sin isn’t held against you.
I was referring to the structure of frontier brush arbor churches, BenKenobi. They were not Catholic, therefore there were no priests. There was oftentimes little close involvement by any denomination, as contact with more settled areas was infrequent at best.
Well, the problem is that the Catholic church did put the bible together in the form that we understand it to be now.
The New Testament was written by the Apostles and the Canon set down by Pope Damasus before the Vulgates were commissioned by the Emperor Theodosius. Over a millennium prior to Luther.
You do know, right, that the Bible existed prior to Luther? In Latin?
“The Catholic church can’t claim that Scripture gives it its authority if it also claims that it gave the world Scripture.”
True, which is why the Catholic church claims that their authority comes from Christ himself, as recorded in scripture, through St. Peter.
Christ gives the Church their authority, not scripture. This is the reason for apostolic succession, the chain of bishops all the way back to St. Peter.
“The only way the Catholic church could claim Scripture gives it its authority is if Scripture is outside the purview of the church, standing alone as its own authority.”
Or they claim something else entirely. :)
That's the one that left out the Deuterocanonical books with which Martin Luther also took issue, isn't it?
{I was referring to the structure of frontier brush arbor churches, BenKenobi. They were not Catholic, therefore there were no priests. There was oftentimes little close involvement by any denomination, as contact with more settled areas was infrequent at best.”
Depends on where you are on the frontier. In Texas, there were Spanish missions throughout Texas, well before the 19th century and the frontier.
In California, you had the same. Most of the settlement in CA grew up around the Spanish Missions there.
Elsewhere, there were French Missionaries all through the West. Many of the indians that the settlers encountered, depending on the tribe, spoke French, because of the French missions and missionaries. Sure, it wouldn’t be the same as it is now, but the Catholic church was very active throughout the west in starting missions. We just aren’t taught very much about this, because it would conflict with the rest of the stuff we learn in school. ;)
But, yes, it’s there. Plenty of French influence still if you know where to look.
Nope, the Latin bible prior to Luther is the Vulgate, and they included all the books.
Seems I recall some little kerfluffle about Jerome and having to strongarm him into including certain books.
Look up Codex Amiatinus if you want to know more. :)
It’s one of the best manuscripts that we, at present, possess. It’s been dated to the 9th century and is in excellent condition.
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.