Posted on 10/31/2022 5:45:07 AM PDT by tanstaafl.72555
Some of us never left. Most of the so called lutheran church is an apostate Sunday social club. Luther would not recognize them
—> Luther would not recognize them
So true.
There are a few of us that still hold to the Biblical principles of the Reformation. I wish the rest would stop calling themselves Lutheran. The motto of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod at reformation + 500? “it’s still all about Christ”
—> Any religion that disappears and has to be scientifically restored centuries later by treating its bible like a dinosaur bone or piece of ancient pottery was never true to begin with.
Thankfully, saving faith never disappeared - though they tried to snuff it out.
“ I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.”
It is always so.
Looking forward to tomorrow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbPshOGxpew
For All the Saints
Who from their labors rest
See all you brothers and sisters, in the clouds, at the pre trib rapture. 🤪😆😂🤭👍
Amen, Brother!
Armenia adopted Xianity as its state religion back when it was still illegal in Rome. Yet when Roman and Armenian Xians encountered each other in the second millennium they were both offering "the holy sacrifice," praying to "the mother of god" and the saints, had priests wearing gorgeous garments, and absolving sins in confession. And I'm afraid Thomas Nelson wasn't around to provide inexpensive bibles for everyone to take to church with them yet. That Constantine must have been some guy. Probably had a Star Trek transporter around somewhere to beam him from Armenia to India, to China, to Ethiopia. Any religion that disappears and has to be scientifically restored centuries later by treating its bible like a dinosaur bone or piece of ancient pottery was never true to begin with.
Which, for those who do not know you, is from one who asserts that Christianity (though you leave out the first "i") has never been a Biblical religion, and that the Bible is simply not important to the historical chrstian churches, and that the only truly Biblical religion is Torah Judaism, while the Noahide Laws are the true religion for all non-Jews. Yet by effectively rejecting Scripture as the sure and supreme standard, versus the tradition of elders, then you are engaging in the same elevation of uninspired men that Catholics do. Thus your implicit sympathy towards Catholics by attacking Bible Christians is not surprising.
And by invoking Catholic traditions you are providing examples of the deformation of the NT church. For although the 1st c. church did not have all the writings of the complete NT until about 90AD, nor freely available to the masses, yet for Christians the NT is the wholly God-inspired substantive written record of what it believed. Which was not that of praying to "the mother of god" and the saints (utterly absent in Scripture, despite over 200 prayers by believers recorded therein), nor priests wearing gorgeous garments, and absolving sins in confession. Etc.
For while it is technically true that the ancient Christian did not get their religion from "the bible," yet the NT church essentially did get their religion from Scripture, as a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, (Christ Himself referred to, "all the Scriptures") And which body provided the epistemological prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the NT, which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 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.) even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to. (Luke 24:27.44,45)
And thus the issue is that of Scripture being the sure and supreme standard for faith and morals, for God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And thus as 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. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
And aside from Himself, you will not find any revelation, writing or institution or created being exalted and used and invoked BY GOD like as Scripture is.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalms 138:2)
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)
And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. And Shaphan carried the book to the king, and brought the king word back again, saying, All that was committed to thy servants, they do it. (2 Chronicles 34:15-16) And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go, enquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:19-21)
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)" Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Matthew 4:7) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Matthew 4:10)
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
👍 I am still trying to conjure up a good Limerick. 🤗🤪😀
LOL, Buckwheat!
For although the 1st c. church did not have all the writings of the complete NT until about 90AD ... yet for Christians the NT is the wholly God-inspired substantive written record of what it believed.
ZC being accused of "implicit sympathy towards Catholicism" is surely one of the last signs of the impending Apocalypse.
And by invoking Catholic traditions you are providing examples of the deformation of the NT church.
And there we have it. The NT church which produced and ultimately canonized the NT Scriptures themselves, was already "deformed". Yet we should trust, 2000 years later, daniel1212 and Ellen Gould White to get it all straightened out.
Any religion that disappears and has to be scientifically restored centuries later by treating its bible like a dinosaur bone or piece of ancient pottery was never true to begin with.
ZC: exactly right.
See all you brothers and sisters, in the clouds, at the pre trib rapture. 🤪😆😂🤭👍Sorry brother, but without any animus toward you, I am persuaded that the Lord will return at the end of the Trib. which God will keep His own thru. But if I am wrong (and could be), to walk in faith is to be present with the Lord at His coming or our death, whatever comes first. And in any case, as the 1st c. Christians were told "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God," (Acts 14:22) so we must expect this increasingly, esp. since"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?' (1 Peter 4:17-18)
Saving faith can and probably was active even as a peassant observed the gospel message in the stained glass windows ... the Gospel is a glory to Jesus not men. That God chose to grant His righteousness to sinners if they will but believe in Whom God sent for their salvation is, well, The Gospel of God’s Grace to the Glory of Jesus, God with us.
The questions 'sound' so thoughtful, yet are founded on a false assumption thus all riddled with deception.
Many Catholics do not know even the smallest amount of history surrounding the Church with these men you mentioned.
As the Church grew out of the early middle ages, and along with the expanding secular western civilization- corruption of sinfulness,
would know doubt be its companion- as it was with Judas, as it is to this day.
Luther, and others, did actually take a cue from the new “humanists” that came before him whom had already began paving a road of “reform”.
Many Christians- Protestant and Catholic alike, unaware give all credit to Luther for this movement away from the Church.
Though to be sure, not without help from misleading historical writings that constantly reinforce this misconception and ignore true history of reform.
Now obviously you can’t agree with this, but for most Protestant Pastors who do convert back to Catholicism, (like the Dr’s Bergsma, Anders and Scott Hahn) they did so exactly because they had a desire to examine and study this real history of reform.
They saw then this history revealed, how leading up to Luther and Calvin, how the reformers misunderstood the need for an organic reform- and pursued a flawed personal flavor of it, which of course would soon have each of them disagreeing and fighting with each other.
Though for the reformers, removing authority from the Church, and placing it with the new secular authorities of their time may have seemed like a good idea at the time…
it was not really change at all. (Think Servetus or Henry Vlll here.) It just allowed them to get away from Rome.
It gives a new spin on…
“Those Who Do Not Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It”
Tell that to Paul in doctrinal issues, or your own popes. Your rejection of what was said will be shown to be a problem.
.How is it possible for the church to have even existed prior to AD 90 without the NT? Were they even Christians, since "the NT is the wholly God-inspired (etc.)"?
That question is a consequence of not reading more. The contextual issue at hand is the basis for veracity, tradition or Scripture, and in refuting the false dilemma that since the NT church did not have a complete Bible then it was based upon the veracity of the church itself, I stated that,
the NT church essentially did get their religion from Scripture, as a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, (Christ Himself referred to, "all the Scriptures") And which body provided the epistemological prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the NT, which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 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.) even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to. (Luke 24:27.44,45)
Who decided that the NT was "complete," and when was that decision promulgated, and by whose authority? How do you, personally, know that the NT is "complete"? Include how you know how to define "completeness" in this context.The question is not just who but on what basis were both men and writings of God established as being so? Since as demonstrated a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture," and which manifestly provided the epistemological prophetic and doctrinal foundation for the NT, then the question is how?
The Catholic premise is that an (their) historical infallible magisterium is essential to know what writings as from God (thus within RC apologetics, in order to avoid the circularity of proving the church by the Scriptures and then the Scriptures by the church, “it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration.” - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility) but which means that the 1st c. Christians lacked the actual established sure, substantive God-inspired body of Divine writings which they appealed to as authoritative.
Not only that, since an historical infallible magisterium is essential to know which writings are of God, then it follows that the same is essential to know what men are ordained of God. And since the Scribes and Pharisees did indeed sit in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) whose judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) and to whom conditional obedience was even enjoined by the Lord, (Mt. 23:2) - as it is to civil rulers - (Rm. 13:1-7) and thus the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth 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) then (consistent with the premise behind your judgment) the people should have submitted to them.
But instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the historical magisterium rejected, as it did John whom the common people held to be a prophet indeed, and who heard Jesus gladly, (Mk. 11:27-33; 12:37) and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 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.)
Note also that the Palestinian canon (held to by those in the seat of Moses) was evidentially basically settled by the time of Christ (thus His appeal to "all the Scriptures") and which is what even some RC affirm the Prot. canon holds to, meanwhile (contrary to so much RC propaganda and spin) it was not until after the death of Luther that Rome definitively settled her canon.
Yet as was the case with the establishment of men as being of God, the establishment of writings being of God is not really due to conciliar decree, as warranted and helpful as such can be, but the establishment of both is essentially due to their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, which magisterial authority is to recognize. However, thepremise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults) is novel and unScriptural, being nowhere promised (despite attempts to wrangle it out of enjoined obedience and promised guidance - which nothing new) nor exampled (Caiphas does not). Thus the short answer to your question as to who decided what the NT was "complete," and when was that decision promulgated, and by whose authority?
Moreover, as the RC premise is that Roman authority is essential to know what writings are of God, then the issue becomes how does one know that Rome is the OTC, and when was that decision promulgated, and by whose authority apart from a a priori acceptance of her veracity. Or as based upon the manner of their heavenly qualities and attestation by which 1st c. souls discerned that John was "a prophet indeed" and that Christ was the Divine Son of God? It is due to the problems with the latter that you argue for Roman authority being essential to know what writings are of God, since her distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed .
2 Tm 3:15-17 says that the Scriptures Timothy has "known since his infancy," which can only mean the Tanach, since little or nothing of the NT had been written when Timothy was an infant, are sufficient to make "the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works". Given therefore that the NT itself says seems to say it is not absolutely necessary, why do you on your authority say that it is the only thing necessary?
Since I nowhere said that or inferred it, only that Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, best shows how the NT church understood the gospels then the question is a unwarranted objection. Nor as I have explained it does SS mean Scripture formally provides all that is necessary, though it is the sure, supreme and sufficient standard with its material sense included, and affirms the magisterial office, etc. some RC apologists of name hold that Scripture materially provides what is necessary, though not as the sole supreme authority (vs. "sola prima")
And there we have it. The NT church which produced and ultimately canonized the NT Scriptures themselves, was already "deformed". Yet we should trust, 2000 years later, daniel1212 and Ellen Gould White to get it all straightened out.Non-sequitur. The NT church means New Testament church of the first century, which church wrote the NT, and as seen therein it did not teach or practice the distinctive Catholic beliefs at issue, thus it could not have been deformed, which the lady preacher mentioned also examples.
ZC: exactly right.Meaning that is it your tradition - which is rejected in asserting the Noahide Laws being the true religion versus another tradition, with rejection of Scripture as the sure supreme standard being what is held in common. What a confederacy.
I'm Lutheran. We don't believe that Luther was the first. We do know, however, that he was one of the first to actually survive that rediscovery. Many others were previously killed by the Catholic Church for such heresy. We also know that Luther had to go into hiding in order to avoid the very same fate.
AH, yes, the ELCA Lutheran-want-to-be church of Satin.
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.