You can't argue from Scripture, so you continue to play the Godwin card, even after we showed you clearly that Catholics of the time were far, far WORSE than Dr. Luther could even dream of being?
Posted on 06/30/2017 4:43:54 PM PDT by Gamecock
The year 2017 is the year of Martin Luther—or at least it should be. Nearly 500 years ago on October 31, 1517, Luther nailed (or “mailed,” for some historians debate this point) his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church.
Even so, Luther didn’t become a full-fledged protestor of the church in that single moment. It took him about eight years (1513-1521) to challenge and hammer out a more robust understanding of the gospel.
Have you ever wondered what Martin Luther was reading during this crucial time in his life? Maybe I’m just a nerd, but I thought at least someone else might be interested in what Luther was reading during his slow, but steady, transition out of the medieval church and into the world of reformation.
Remember, Luther’s goal wasn’t to invent or start an entirely new church. His goal was to reform the church and call her to repentance and faith in the abiding Word of God.
Here are four books Martin Luther read that made him question everything:
1. The Psalms Luther spent time studying and lecturing through the Psalms in the Bible. He began to realize that the Bible teaches we are not generally sinful, we are totally sinful. Here, Luther had the beginnings of what theologians later would refer to as “total depravity,” meaning that we are sinful in our thoughts, words, and deeds.
2. Romans After that, Luther lectured through Paul’s letter to the Romans. He came across Romans 1:17, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” The last part of this verse is a direct quotation from Habakkuk 2:4.
Luther began to see something that he never saw before. He began to see the doctrine of imputation—that we are declared right before God not by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness of another. He began to understand that the righteousness of God that was such a terror to him as a priest (because it told him that he was unholy and unworthy), was actually the righteousness from God that told him he was holy and worthy. God gives this right standing by faith alone. It is a righteousness that is received as a gift and not earned.
3. Galatians It wasn’t until Luther started lecturing through Galatians that he began to realize that faith does not justify us before God. Faith is merely an instrument that God uses. Faith is a tool by which we embrace Jesus Christ as he is offered to us in the gospel.
Faith is, as John Murry once said, “extrospective.” It looks outward—not inward—to embrace the God who gives himself. In other words, faith is only an empty hand. It justifies because it grabs hold of the Jesus who justifies (Rom. 3:26).
4. Hebrews The last book that turned a medieval priest into a true Reformer was the letter to the Hebrews. Luther began to embrace an entirely different understanding of how the Old and New Testaments relate to one another. He realized that the law is not simply the Old Testament and the gospel is the New Testament, but that the gospel of God can be seen as preached throughout both Old and New Testaments.
The same Jesus of the same gospel was offered freely to both Jew and Gentile alike, throughout the whole Bible. Sure, there was a greater and fuller proclamation of that message, such that it went out to the whole world instead of only Israel and their close neighbors—but the gospel was preached nonetheless!
In short, reading and studying the Bible is what ultimately made Martin Luther “protest” the medieval church. Luther was convinced that the Bible was worth listening to. So this year we celebrate the anniversary of a “recovery of the bright light of the gospel.” To God alone be all the glory (Soli Deo Gloria).
That is really powerful!!!
Thank you for posting that bb.
Not so, for every souls who trusted the risen Lord Jesus to save him/her by His sinless shed blood as a damned and morally destitute sinner( which has always been the case within Catholicism) - versus being made actually good enough to be with God - was/is a Protestant in essence.
I was such myself, becoming manifestly born again thru such simple faith as a convicted, lost but regular Mass-going RC (who had fallen away, and even nature seemed new to this rural 25 year-old.
And knowing of no other church i felt i could trust, i remained a weekly Mass-going and every day of obligation RC for approx. 6 years, during which time i sought to serve God as a CCD teacher and lector.
And seeking to find fellowship with others who had realized this profound change in heart and life (though i was aware of sin even more) with its resultant hunger to know how to please God from the Scripture, but which persons I found very rare, though i met some in RC charismatic meetings.
Instead what mainly nourished my souls was evangelical radio which i was able to listen to as a truck driver. I would seek to witness to others of their need for Christ, and only left Rome after I sincerely prayed to God to show me if I should seek another church, which He manifestly did the next day, and has only confirmed my entrance into evangelical faith, despite its need for continued reformation, and my own as well.
And my opposition to Catholicism is not driven by some personal animosity to it, and I have even asked myself if somehow being a RC could be reconciled with Scripture, but I honestly have seen more and more that the Catholic distinctives are not what the NT church manifestly believed, but that she is in substantial conflict to it, while the church overall today falls behind the purity, power and passion of the NT church, as I do.
But the only one true church is the body of all believers, which was purchased with the sinless blood of Christ, and is His His bride, for it alone always only consists 100% of believers (there have been and are even a few RCs in it), which prevails against the gates of Hell to rescue sinners.
Thus while their cannot be an invisible body without visible manifestations, the one true church cannot refer to any one particular organic church, since such inevitably become amalgams of wheat and tares,
But as always, a relative remnant shall be saved. May we all be of the tribe.
How does the NT Church "invoke" a standard that hasn't even been codified, let alone circulated, yet?
Furthermore, it seems abundantly clear, from the Corinthian letters if from nothing else, that what Scriptures they DID have and used had to be clarified by Apostolic authority (i.e. the Church) because of the easy descent into error when the sheep lack a tangible, conscious, shepherd.
Either way, the proposition that someone reformulating Christianity, under the rubric of "rediscovery" fifteen centuries after it's founding only makes sense to those desirous of making Christianity in their own image.
You can't argue from Scripture, so you continue to play the Godwin card, even after we showed you clearly that Catholics of the time were far, far WORSE than Dr. Luther could even dream of being?
Thanks for a great post boatbums.
What FRomans oppose is a caracture of Luther.
They would do well to read your post.
“Bilgespittle”
It is still an apt description, but if he must change, I vote for “bilgesludge “
“It is every single historical church descended from the Apostles, every single church for fifteen centuries”
One becomes born again/from above through faith in Christ and not faith in a church or apostle.
God has no grandchildren - only children.
Gatherings of those with eternal life are a church, wherever they are found. He is with them.
“Phariseeism is a man made religion, just as Catholicism is.”
Gosh, that makes Roodism man made bilgesludge.
“They’re both man made at their foundation.”
Like, say, the #fakerabbi Michael Rood.
He’s a con man too, but that’s another topic.
“Every single church for 15 centuries.”
Except for Greek Orthodox and all the Christians that Rome slaughtered for daring to believe what the Apostles actually said over what Rome claims.
“Either way, the proposition that someone reformulating Christianity, under the rubric of “rediscovery” fifteen centuries after it’s founding only makes sense to those desirous of making Christianity in their own image. “
Except it wasn’t a remaking dear FRiend.
It was a rediscovery of what God said in His Word so long before - that had been forgotten.
2 Chronicles 34:19-21
It is a Church echo of the story of Josiah, after the rediscovery of the scroll during temple renovation...
“When the king heard what was written in the Law, he tore his clothes in despair. Then he gave these orders to Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the court secretary, and Asaiah the king’s personal adviser: “Go to the Temple and speak to the Lord for me and for all the remnant of Israel and Judah. Inquire about the words written in the scroll that has been found. For the Lord’s great anger has been poured out on us because our ancestors have not obeyed the word of the Lord. We have not been doing everything this scroll says we must do.”
God is faithful, even when His people play the harlot.
Luther, like Josiah, took what God wrote and taught it again, correcting the errors that preceded him. Repentance and salvation have spread around the world and will echo into eternity.
Are you Greek Orthodox ?
Does it matter?
Greek Orthodox teaches salvation by grace. Just like St. Paul, just like Jesus, just like Luther, just like Calvnlinists, just like evangelicals.
NOT like Rome and their salvation by works. Oh, excuse me, ‘merits.’
Consider your fifteen centuries bull hockey blown out of the water.
Awaiting your next Nazi card post.
daniel1212 that is the most devastating Spiritual refutation to the Catholic claim of being 'the one true Church.' I doubt, however, that any Catholic on these threads will allow that powerful TRUTH to sink into their org-trained mind. It is a Truth spiritually discerned, not mental gymnastics discerned. But it is the most powerful I have ever read refuting that Catholicism claim.
No.
False assumptions/broadbrushing, snark and numerous RF guideline violations.
Placemarker
What? Are you another of those devotees of a chauvinistic (a favorite word of ours) church who imagine that writings of God could not be ascertained as such without her, and thus a body of such had not been established as authoritative by the time of Christ, which the NT church invoked as such? Or that Scripture can only refer to a closed canon (if indeed Trent closed it), contrary to the NT church?
Furthermore, it seems abundantly clear, from the Corinthian letters if from nothing else, that what Scriptures they DID have and used had to be clarified by Apostolic authority (i.e. the Church)
No problem here. SS does not mean that the magisterial office is defunct, but instead Scripture actually provides for it, and of oral teaching having authority, if Scriptural (and the OT also provided for more inspired writings), that which was written being the manifest supreme transcendent standard , writing being God's chosen means of preservation.
However, men such as apostles also could sometimes speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public revelation, neither of which even popes claim to do.
because of the easy descent into error when the sheep lack a tangible, conscious, shepherd.
The NT church is simply not manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes, and who provided the final definitive judgment in cases of dispute, while we should be looking for men like Peter who was the initial street-level leader among the brethren and church, with no ordained successors except presbyters, in contrast to that of Rome.
And today many RCs would hardly have us look to the tangible, conscious, shepherd. they regularly condemn now, while apart from paper or perfunctory professions, those who most strongly uphold Scripture as the word of God testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs and values , versus
Either way, the proposition that someone reformulating Christianity, under the rubric of "rediscovery" fifteen centuries after it's founding only makes sense to those desirous of making Christianity in their own image.
Which has no more credibility than your prior argument by assertion, while it remains that it is manifest that the proposition that the church of Rome was the NT church, under the rubric of (the art of) " Development of Doctrine " over 1900 centuries after it's founding only makes sense to those who are ignorant of what the NT record of what the NT manifestly believed or deluded, and or are driven by desire to contrive Christianity into an image to their own liking.
Meanwhile, you failed to deal with how the 95 theses "was the culmination of Luther's work to design a pseudo-Christianity" with its " "Solas" when sola scriptura and sola fide are nowhere manifestly taught in the 95 theses, and which was hardly a "culmination" of the Reformation. Its amazing what what can be asserted as psychohistory.
The link you posted is pretty much exactly what Lutherans believe. In fact, I looked up that exact link before mentioning salvation by grace.
But once we come to Him and receive the gift of salvation, we enter into a sacred covenant to honor Him with good works. We read in Ephesians: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God . . . [We are] created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph 2:8-10).
That is exactly what Lutherans AND Orthodox believe.
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-goodworks.php Do some research instead of spewing Catholic lies.
What Catholics believe, as I posted above from your own catechism, is that you have to earn merits in order to gain salvation; an utterly blasphemous teaching.
If you'd actually done research about what Lutherans believe about good works instead of playing the Hitler card, you'd have known that.
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.