Posted on 10/26/2008 12:25:45 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
I see that you cannot answer the question. Would that be because you do not know what you believe?
That’s a vague citation, where’s the quote.
Bzzzt. False.
I have not answered the question. The false suggestion that I cannot is yours. "Have not" and "cannot" are not the same.
That, of course, is a very protestant idea, albeit a bit different from what I stated in an earlier post. Are you a protestant?
And yet, you still are not answering the question. Are you afraid to state your faith? Are you afraid that you will be ridiculed for your beliefs? Are you denying your saviour?
Are you engaged in a transparent attempt to bait me?
No, that is a very Christ-like idea, and therefore, very Catholic
Are you a protestant?
No, I have ventured to not rebel against Christ or His Church.
Not at all. I have noticed a number of FReepers who visit threads of various Christian denominations to get into a debate. Some have a faith that they are willing to share and an interesting debate sometimes continues. Others, however, are there only to trash the faith. These "trashers" refuse to claim they belong to Christ or explain their faith. The book of Psalms reminds us not to get into a debate with such people. They are evil.
I am trying to ascertain if you are worth my bother.
I’m so afraid to state my faith, you cannot find it anywhere in my posting history or my FR personal page (by clicking my screenname).
I did not know that.
I thought you were.
ROFLMTO
“Get behind me, Satan!”
Oh my. LOL
You already used that line.
It bombed the first time too.
But first of all, if you were a “peasant” you couldn't read. In many places it was illegal for you to do so.
And the Bible was often not allowed to be studied by many layman. For one thing, the enormous cost of a Bible made it a very precious thing. For another, there was a feeling that the texts should only be in Greek or Latin. If you were a nobleman from Northern Germany, you might know a little Greek and a decent amount of Latin, but the fear was that you shouldn't allow someone who didn't really now the language read it. Luther knew both Greek and Latin, and later Hebrew, but he was a professor.
The big fear was that some layman would read a verse or so out of context and then go willy nilly into a war. So access to the Bible was very limited in many places. In others, like Venice, it was not (though Venice was a much more liberal city than Gutenberg).
When Luther translated the Bible into a common tougne, it was a huge scandal. Not so much that the common people could read it (most couldn't read) but that it could be read in whole to them. Most preachers of the day would preach from a few texts they had either translated themselves, or had been already translated for them. While a German translation of the Bible was not unknown, it wasn't very common. Luther's translation, coupled with the printing press, made the Bible cheap enough to be owned by many, and in a language they could understand.
I haven’t seen the ‘you were not allowed to read the Bible’ part documented yet. I’ve been called Satan, but I haven’t seen the documentation.
What I do know is that prior to Gutenberg, Bibles were hand written (hideously expensive) and, further (as you stated) peasants were not literate.
Nevermind, further, that every celebration of the Mass includes readings from Scripture and further still that large parts of the Liturgy are also directly from Scripture.
Having watched you abuse my fellow Lutherans in your previous posts and not replying to your outlandish ad hominem attacks, I see you finally make some general statement as to what you believe.
While you may not agree with anything I say from here forward, please read and prove to me where I am wrong. For the sake of argument, let’s use the Bible as a basis. That’s where this all started. If you want to include early church practice/art/fathers, I have no problem with that. All that being said, let’s hear it. Otherwise, kindly refrain from attacking my brothers and sisters in the simply because they believe differently or hold a higher opinion of Luther than you do.
Your statement is simply not accurate. Faith is NOT an act of man; it is an act of the Holy Spirit. Faith is worked within us by the Holy Spirit; we may only reject it. Anything else presupposes that we have some goodness within us before the Spirit comes to us.
Simply put, by God’s Grace we are sent the Holy Spirit. By His presence, faith is worked in our hearts. All of this is done by God’s hand. Again, all man can do is reject it.
As an example, since the Bible alone apparently doesn’t cut it for you, take a look at early church art, specifically that art depicting Christ rescuing sinners from hell. Where is Christ’s hand on the sinner being saved? It’s on the sinner’s wrist. The hand is not being held; there is no cooperation (synergism). This is indicative of the TOTALITY of salvation being on God, with NONE on man.
If you want to speak Bibilically, check out Romans Chapters 3, 4& 5. There and in Ephesians 2:4-10, it can be seen that justification by faith is not Luther’s doctrine (as you suggested in one of your other posts), but is, in fact, God’s Word. It seems pretty clear that Luther isn’t being innovative here.
I look forward to your well-reasoned reply.
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.