Christianity
Martin Luther
Posts  1 - 18  of  18
amose1550bce
I just got through watching my DVD about Martin Luther. He was a man of great courage who stood up against the pope and the Holy Roman Emporer. It was during the time of rebirth in Europe. He sought to simplify the church not to replace it. Unfortunatly it set off a powderkeg which Luther did not intend and which he regretted. In his day to say anything that was different from the Roman Church could end up in the death sentence. I would like to hear what other people would like to say.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  amose1550bce
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  I just got through watching my DVD about Martin Luther. He...
Martan luther was a heritic, and so are all others who refuse to be sumisive to the Holy Roman Church that was founded by Christ, lutharian, anglican, evengelical, mormons, muslims, jews, prespitarians, pentecostals, ect cant all be right can they, for we are to be of one mind and one body as st paul says.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  catholicapoligist
amose1550bce
Replied to:  Martan luther was a heritic, and so are all others who...
According to a conversation with a Luthern minister I learned that Martin Luther died as a member of the Roman Church. He is said to be holding a rosary when he died. The word catholic comes the Greek meaning universal and means the universal church which embraces all of those regardless of what denominations they are. The whole is greater than all the parts, Christ being the whole and the parts being the various types of belief. Get the whole picture and the parts will come together.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  catholicapoligist
silverglass
Replied to:  Martan luther was a heritic, and so are all others who...
You are indoctrinated into your tradition and are limited in your understanding of reformed theology. When someone makes the kind of statements you have just made then I believe one needs to be suspect of the bias which makes the bible less than what it was intended to be. You are making tradition a standard above the text of scripture. You cannot prove what you are saying and should not say things out of the context of scripture. Remember the word of God cannot be added to and so Roman tradition is just that an addition to the truth and therefore suspect. You need to correct you thinking and bring it in line with the written text which is above tradition.
Douay-Rheims Bible 2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
amose1550bce
Replied to:  You are indoctrinated into your tradition and are limited in your...
The accepted scriptures were backed by the power of Rome. Tradition existed at least for more than three centuries before the accepted(orthodox)scriptures were written. You have to remember that most people in those days were illerate so they relied on oral tradition from generation to generation. The oral tradition changed over time so the content of the scriptures changed. If you say all scripture is inspired then you would have to accepted all the scriptures. This would include the Gospel of Thomas,the gospel of Judas,the Gospel of Mary. The Aopcolypse of Peter. My meaning of reform would be to remove all the formalized and ritualized religion and replace it with the simple communial gatherings of the earliest Christians.

Yes I am ignorant of many things. The sign of ignorance can be expressed by three words,I don't know. To say that one has all the answers is both arrogant and closed minded.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  You are indoctrinated into your tradition and are limited in your...
Does it say in 2 timothy 3:16 scripture ALONE can be used to teach, to reprove, to corect, to instruct, in justice? I think not. IN john ch21:25 it says not everthing is writen in the bible, but did this hinder the apostlse from knowing and beliving it?
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  amose1550bce
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  The accepted scriptures were backed by the power of Rome. Tradition...
If rome backed and wrote the scriptures (whitch they did) then they had the absolute athority to select the biblical canon. There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. The church accepted the New Testament books almost as soon as they were written. Their authors were associates of Jesus or his immediate followers, men to whom Jesus had entrusted the leadership of the early church. The Gospel writers Matthew and John were some of Jesus' closest followers. Mark and Luke were companions of the apostles, having access to the apostles' account of Jesus' life.

The other New Testament authors had immediate access to Jesus as well: James and Jude were half-brothers of Jesus who initially did not believe in him. Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Paul started out as a hater of Christianity, but he became an apostle after he had a vision of Christ. He was also in communication with the other apostles.

The content of the New Testament books lined up with what thousands of eyewitnesses had seen for themselves. When other books were written hundreds of years later (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, written by the Gnostic sect around 130-170 A.D., long after Judas' death), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as forgeries. The Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 A.D., is another example of a counterfeit writing erroneously bearing an apostles' name. These and other Gnostic gospels conflicted with the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained numerous historical and geographical errors.13

In A.D. 367, Athanasius formally listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list. These lists, however, were not necessary for the majority of Christians. By and large the whole church had recognized and used the same list of books since the first century after Christ. As the church grew beyond the Greek-speaking lands and needed to translate the Scriptures, and as splinter sects continued to pop up with their own competing holy books, it became more important to have a definitive list.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  catholicapoligist
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  If rome backed and wrote the scriptures (whitch they did) then...
Am I wrong?
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  catholicapoligist
amose1550bce
Replied to:  Am I wrong?
It is not a matter of just right or wrong.It is not just black or white, up or down, left or right. A child whose mind has not developed thinks like this and can be molded into what ever she/he is told. We must take a moral responsability when teaching our children keeping in mind what they are taught at an early age can affect them for the rest of their lives. Jesus loved children as expressed by this simple hymn

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Black and Yellow Red or White
They are precious in his sight
Jesus loves the children of the World

How can I say anything more? I cannot.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  catholicapoligist
silverglass
Replied to:  Does it say in 2 timothy 3:16 scripture ALONE can be...
Douay-Rheims Bible
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
Tell me how does the above verse cancel the authority of 2 Timothy 3:16.
Does tradition speak for the bible? You take unwarranted liberty to interpret scripture so it supports tradition. If you think anyone is going to be taken in by this poor attempt at exegesis then you need to think again. You are way over your head in arrogance.
2 Peter 1:21. "But no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." This passage says all that Paul said in the passage above. Furthermore, "prophecy" must be understood in the sense of "all scripture" and not limited to predictive elements. The source of Scripture is God; Scriptures were spoken by man indeed; but the men who spoke it spoke "from God."
Tradition on the other hand in not from God. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  Douay-Rheims Bible
But there are also many other things which Jesus did;...
All of the Word of God was at one time passed on orally...Sacred Tradition. Eventually, some of Sacred Tradition was written down...this became Sacred Scripture, which is written tradition. However, Scripture itself tells us that not all of the things that Jesus said and did were written down. And listen to what Paul says about "tradition":

2 Thes 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to "stand firm and hold to". Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

1 Cor 11:2, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

2 Tim 2:2: "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition.

1 Thes 2:13, "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers." So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture.

In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church's teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.



Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  Douay-Rheims Bible
But there are also many other things which Jesus did;...


Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  catholicapoligist
silverglass
Replied to:  All of the Word of God was at one time passed...
First of all paul was a chosen apostle by god to begin the process of church planting. Second there was no written text until he and other aposltes wrote it by the inspiration of the holy spirit. Third because this was the begining of the church's dispensation it has to be understood that there were special miracles and oral edifications necessary that eventually would pass away as the written word would take the place of these things. I cortithians 13 says this. If you read it carefully you will see that things of this sort would pass away but the word of God remains forever.
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Coffman NT Commentary 1 Corinthians 13
Tongues ... shall cease ...
This means that the TRUE gifts of tongues would cease. In many generations after those days, the gift of so-called "tongues" would flourish at intervals throughout the history of Christendom; but Paul's words here absolutely deny any authenticity whatever to the so-called charismatics of the present day. True, it is only said here that "tongues SHALL cease"; but there is no reason whatever to believe that this least of all supernatural gifts should have survived when supernatural knowledge, divine prophecy, and the gift of miracle-working faith perished; which, of course, they did. Any authentic speaking in tongues is here restricted by the apostle Paul to the age of miracles; and when that ceased, the tongues ceased, except for the affectations of those who indulge, from whatever motives, the counterfeit "tongues" of the present day.

The very fact of Paul's showing "the more excellent way" declared that the supernatural gifts would soon pass away, otherwise that generation would not have needed the instruction. Those gifts at Corinth had a purpose. In that day in Corinth, no man had a copy of the New Testament; therefore it was necessary that supernaturally endowed men should teach and lead them; but today, "No preacher or teacher has any message from God unless he gets it from the Bible." F18

During the childhood age of the church, miracles authenticated the message of the inspired preachers (Mark 16:20). Miracles were to confirm the word of God. "No miracle today could confirm the word of God; it is already confirmed. Men need simply to believe and obey it." F19
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  First of all paul was a chosen apostle by god to...
Scripture can be considered a preeminent standerd of truth, but not one that rules out the power of apostolic tradition and the church. In 2 Tim does not teach bible alone, but only the virtues of scripture.

When Christ condemes tradition he usualy derects his rebuke at tradiditions of men. The aposle paul mentions a christian tradition 1cor. 11:2, contrasting it to human tradition col.2:8. He also speaks of oral tradittion in 1 thess.2:13. A proof of the churches power is that in the jerusalem council and its binding athority over its decisions on cercumsision. Jesus Christs apostles never at any time practesed Sola scriptura only the hippocritical sadducees rejected oral tradition but they also rejevted the soul, afterlife, angles, ect, ect.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  catholicapoligist
silverglass
Replied to:  Scripture can be considered a preeminent standerd of truth, but not...
The apostolic tradition ended with the original 12, period!
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  catholicapoligist
silverglass
Replied to:  Scripture can be considered a preeminent standerd of truth, but not...
Do you believe that your works can save you? Do you think you have exposed the sayings of Jesus enough to say that your works are part of your salvation. Have you read Augustine's and Aquina's thoughts on how you are finally save? Did you know they said we are all predestined. Some for hell and some for heaven! Do you not see how this tradition plays havoc with mens souls!
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  The apostolic tradition ended with the original 12, period!
Where does scripture state this give me the book chapter and verse.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
catholicapoligist
Replied to:  Do you believe that your works can save you? Do...
No i dont belive that works save me... im sorry if at some time in tihs disscusion i said this i cant remember...

Save
Cancel
Reply
 
x
OK