Luther vs Catholic Church

Status
Not open for further replies.

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No one can argue that much evil has been done on both sides. That does not excuse what the Papacy did in taking advantage of the masses of people who looked to the Church for salvation.

So, yes, I think Luther was justified in the stance he took against the Catholic Church he was a part of. He obviously did not get everything right, but his protest of the sale of Indulgences, for example, was entirely merited. He would have been justified enough in protesting such things even by moral standards, but that the word of God absolutely supports rejecting Indulgences, there can be no doubt.

No one has the right to buy and sell salvation, no matter who they are or how they go about it.

I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time, if we read the story of the Pastor, a German Lutheran who then converted when he saw reality – he became Catholic – in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power…and this he protested. Then he was intelligent and took some steps forward justifying, and because he did this. And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for the Church…--Pope Francis

Full text: Pope Francis' in-flight press conference from Armenia
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Goatee
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have found it interesting lately learning a little about Luther and the Pope / Catholic Church.

I am only just starting to find out more! Why? I need to find out his beliefs, how he viewed the CC hierarchy and how pious was he?

Some of the things I have recently learned have opened my eyes a bit and I want to dig deeper but with an open mind on it all.

Luther started out as a Catholic. He must have had strong faith in the church? What were the main reasons why he turned on the church? Was he in the right with the beliefs he had about the Pope and the Bible etc?

Anyone here delved into his life and beliefs in detail?
Here's some Catholic resources to look at none other than Pope Benedict XVI is an expert on Luther.

The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility – White Horse Inn)
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That passage flies in the face of finding all between the covers of the Bible. And, because most of the people on these fora are Sola Scriptura, how do they get that idea?

Recommend you back up a chapter:

John 19: NKJV
30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but 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.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I did read it. But you wrote in such glowing terms that it sounded like you worship him, which I know is not true. My point is that there are many, many Christian churches that teach that Catholics worship Mary, and that the Reformation was the TRUE beginning of Christianity, as if the entire 1400 years that came before it are null and void because of the wretchedness and wickedness of a few Popes, bishops, and priests.

And it has always been just a few. The popes, as a whole, have been good, loving bishops of their flock in Rome and elsewhere. Bishops usually do their job and shepherd their flocks, teaching the the truth of Jesus Christ.
Ratzinger sure had some understanding words regarding Luther:

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Martin Luther did a bad, bad thing by removing some books of the Holy Bible. That was a terrible thing to do. Who was he to deprive Christians of some part of the sacred word of God?!
Which books did he remove?
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time, if we read the story of the Pastor, a German Lutheran who then converted when he saw reality – he became Catholic – in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power…and this he protested. Then he was intelligent and took some steps forward justifying, and because he did this. And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for the Church…--Pope Francis

Full text: Pope Francis' in-flight press conference from Armenia

Thanks for sharing this. I humbly disagree with what he says (the words I highlighted in bold).

I know Pope Francis has been making major efforts and taking huge strides toward ecumenism however, something many Catholics are not too happy about either. Pope John Paul II was also involved with a lot of ecumenical endeavors, though perhaps not as much as Pope Francis.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yes, our Lord did purge our sins by himself.

You seem to think that by the doctrine of purgatory, we merit forgiveness of our sins through our suffering or punishment. But this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It is by the blood of Christ by which we are purified during purgatory. It is impossible for us to merit anything in purgatory.

Are you sure that you understand Catholicism?

Here some Scripture for you.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
In your opinion, why does verse 23 state "better sacrifices" instead of "a better sacrifice"? In other words, why does the author use the plural, "sacrifices" rather than the singular "sacrifice"?

Here is another question for you. I assume that you pray the Lord's prayer from time to time. The version in Luke (KJV) states: "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us."

When you pray, why do you ask God to forgive your sins, if all of your past, present, and future sins were already forgiven by God at the moment that you were saved? Why is it that you pray for what you believe you have already received?

None of those verses give any support for the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Those verses are speaking of how the Old Covenant pointed to Christ, types and shadows of things to come, because we know that animal sacrifices are not in any way able to save anyone, but those sacrifices pointed to the one time, and all sufficient sacrifice to come, the spotless Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world.

As for confessing our sins, we do so because we know our High Priest in heaven intercedes for us, not because we lose salvation when we sin, and not because the sacrifice of Christ is not finished or is not sufficient, but because we know we can come boldly before the throne of grace and ask for help in any time of need, and that we can cast all our cares on Him because He cares for us.

When we are saved, we are born again. We are not unborn every time we mess up. Also, we can know from Scripture that there is no other sacrifice for sin but that which Christ already offered on the
cross, once for all.
We receive that sacrifice through faith and are justified when we believe. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for believing there is a place of temporal suffering called Purgatory where we must go for Christ's blood to purify us, none. We are saved by grace, through faith, and not only partially until Purgatory, completely.

If we decide that Christ's sacrifice for sin was not enough, there is no where else to turn. We are saved by no other name.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Luther in my estimation was correct for excluding these books from the Old Testament canon. Luther on his discussion on the New Testament canon is another issue altogether different as his heirs generally reject his thoughts on the canonicity that he held shortly after his break with Rome.

Thanks good explanation. What most don't know, even Catholics, is entering the Council of Trent quite a few bishops, cardinals and Catholic scholars agreed with Luther on the disputed OT books. This canon tradition had support from Church antiquity.

The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin, waded into the dispute leading up to and during Trent. He noted one respected theologian stanchly loyal to the Pope, Cardinal Seripando. Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin elaborates:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.


Jedin continues:

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

Catholic historian Hubert Jedin also adds later:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse…Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.



Of course the slam dunk answer is "what difference does it make" because Trent settled this. Which is correct from a 16th Century Catholic Trent position.

I wanted to point out that leading into Trent within the Church herself, there was a long tradition dating back to the Athanasius canon of the deuterocanonical OT books being for edification and not equal to in authority of the protocanonical OT books for doctrinal authority.

With names such as Athanasius, St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene (couple of those names are Doctors of the Church), the protocanonical vs. deuterocanonical was a Catholic tradition. Until Trent.

The notions that Luther, other Reformers or Protestants in general ‘made this stuff’ up and that it was a 16th Century AD machination no longer holds water. The evidence shows there was even dissent within the walls of the Council of Trent.

Finally, given there was such debate within the walls of the Council of Trent, also shows evidence the OT canon was not settled in the 4th Century AD.


Source material can be found at this Google Books site:

Papal Legate at the Council of Trent

Hubert Jedin was a Catholic Church historian from Germany, whose publications specialized on the history of ecumenical councils in general and the Council of Trent in particular, on which he published a 2400-page history over the years 1951-1975.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But there is the problem. YOU cannot interpret scripture, how you like, which is quite clear that nothing impure can enter " the new Jerusalem" . Revelations 21

And since all of us are impure ( and at least most of us admit it) there must inevitably be a process of purgation that " purifies us as if by fire" between leaving here and entering there.

For one and a half millennia , this was believed by all but a few heretics. For sure orthodox ( like other aspects) prefer not to define how, speaking of purgation. Where RCC identifies the intermediate state ( or sometimes characterised as a place )as purgatory. And in that state prayers for the dead have value. As indeed the Septuagint ( the Greek OT the apostles and Jesus quote ) makes reference, and Jewish tradition also holds in Kaddish,

And regardless of that, that is what the scripturally appointed authority of the magisterium tells me is right.

Then along came a few whose logic was not good enough to see the impossibility of sola scriptura, empowering the even more misleading " Priesthood of all believers" ( AKA , we don't want to abolish the pope, we all want to be him) to make up their own interpretation.
The succession was lost and in the inevitable drifting The chaos of ten thousand and counting differing beliefs ensued.

This thread was about Luther, who rightly observed that as a result " there are now as many doctrines as heads" " it is the greatest scandal... every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

I notice nobody contests that, I am quoting Luther! One of the architects of the mess, who regretted it!

Unlike Luther I wouldn't be rude enough to describe other Christians I disagree with " milkmaids", doesn't alter the fact that in this he was right.

It is also reasonable to conclude that Luther himself believed in purgatory, he questioned aspects of indulgencies, not the state. Luther's core beliefs remained very catholic.

Are you saying , RCC, orthodox ( purgation), Luther and some Lutherans , and others accounting for by far the overwhelming majority of theologians and believers are all wrong, only YOU can interpret correctly? Some would say that is a seriously arrogant position to hold!



Here is just one example of a Catholic doctrine/tradition (from the Official Catechism) that completely contradicts Scripture:

Here is what the Catholic Catechism says:

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.


Here is what the Bible says, in part, regarding how Christ Himself has perfectly "purged" our sins and complete forgiveness is found in Him, with no need of any further sacrifice to make His sacrifice perfect, and also how when we die, we will be present with the Lord, not in Purgatory.

"
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." - John 19:28-30

"
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high..." - Hebrews 1:1-3

"
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God..." - Hebrews 10:10-12

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." - 1 John 1:8-9

"Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. - 2 Corinthians 5:6-8
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dan61861

7 days without God, makes one weak.
Jul 21, 2012
839
366
Valparaiso, Indiana
✟102,026.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why do most Protestants believe that everything Christian can be learned between the covers of the Bible? I grew up Catholic and I spent 8 years in Catholic School. I read the Bible. I read it a lot. It used to be, before I became a monk, that I would read the Bible cover to cover, in about three months, and then start right at the beginning again. I did that for at least 20 years.

Still, I have found that there are things that are simply NOT in the Bible, that are still necessary for Christian Growth. As I have said before, it is not enough to make a decision for Christ. That is just the starting point. There are more things that Jesus said than would fill all the books in the world. (According to John 21:25) “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

That passage flies in the face of finding all between the covers of the Bible. And, because most of the people on these fora are Sola Scriptura, how do they get that idea?
I just recommended he read the Bible on his own, guess that can be offensive to some.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What the Bible teaches can vary quite a lot between one person and the next! People have their own option on what different verses etc are telling them. This is what happens in SOLA or Solo Scripture.
What you just explained is not Sola Scriptura but eisegesis.

Perhaps a definition is in order:

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNAstructures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scripturaclaim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean?

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of Faith
 
  • Agree
Reactions: amariselle
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
But there is the problem. YOU cannot interpret scripture, how you like, which is quite clear that nothing impure can enter " the new Jerusalem" . Revelations 21

And since all of us are impure ( and at least most of us admit it) there is aprocess of purgation that " purifies us as if by fire" between leaving here and entering there.

For one and a half millennia , this was believed by all but a few heretics. For sure orthodox ( like other aspects) prefer not to define how, speaking of purgation. Where RCC identifies the intermediate state ( or sometimes characterised as a place )as purgatory. And in that state prayers for the dead have value. As indeed the Septuagint ( the Greek OT the apostles and Jesus quote, and Jewish tradition held ) makes reference.

And regardless of that, that is what the scripturally appointed authority of the magisterium tells me is right.

Then along came a few whose logic was not good enough to see the impossibility of sola scriptura, empowering the even more misleading " Priesthood of all believers" ( AKA , we don't want to abolish the pope, we all want to be him) to make up their own interpretation.
The succession was lost and in the inevitable drifting The chaos of ten thousand and counting differing beliefs ensued.

This thread was about Luther, who rightly observed that as a result " there are now as many doctrines as heads" " it is the greatest scandal... every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

Unlike Luther I wouldn't be rude enough to describe other Christians I disagree with " milkmaids", doesn't alter the fact he was right.

It is also reasonable to conclude that Luther himself believed in purgatory, he questioned aspects of indulgencies, not the state.

Are you saying , RCC, orthodox ( purgation), Luther and some Lutherans are all wrong, only YOU can interpret correctly? Some would say that is a seriously arrogant position to hold!

The Bible says that Christ by Himself purged our sins. (Hebrews 1:3) and Jesus Himself said "It is finished! (John 19:28-30)

I don't know what "interpretation" you're trying to suggest I put on these verses, I simply believe they mean what they say.

And if they do mean what they say, then Christ's sacrifice is complete and sufficient, once for all time. Therefore there is no need for a place called Purgatory, and indeed no support for such a place is even once given in Scripture. I think if there was something more to be done for our sins to be purged than what Christ did on the cross, He would have told us. It's pretty important. Instead, the Bible is clear that Christ did it all.

Consider also the verses I shared earlier along with what the Catholic Catechism says:

Here is just one example of a Catholic doctrine/tradition (from the Official Catechism) that completely contradicts Scripture:

Here is what the Catholic Catechism says:

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.


Here is what the Bible says, in part, regarding how Christ Himself has perfectly "purged" our sins and complete forgiveness is found in Him, with no need of any further sacrifice to make His sacrifice perfect, and also how when we die, we will be present with the Lord, not in Purgatory.

"
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." - John 19:28-30

"
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high..." - Hebrews 1:1-3

"
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God..." - Hebrews 10:10-12

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." - 1 John 1:8-9

"Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. - 2 Corinthians 5:6-8

Again, what "interpretation" can there be for what these verses are saying? If the Bible says Christ's death on the cross is absolutely sufficient for all who have believed on Him, well then, I believe it. It really is that simple. And it is such good news.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Good luck with that! He is constantly saying "You don't know what it means" but he will never give his own definition. It is quite comical, really.
I agree.
His position ( like sola scriptura itself ) is untenable.

He once asked me to define it.
Which is A bit like asking an atheist to define God!

Since he believes in " it" whatever his version of " it" is, the least he can do is define it! But he won't, because he knows that all of the definitions are easily dismissed by simple logic, As well as history.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Which is easily disproven

You say this of your highest and so you deem necessary truth:

" all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."

Since scripture nowhere contains your highest truth, by your own definitiin , it does not contain ALL ecessary truth, it omits the one you hold highest!

QED I have proven your definition logically false.

Worse still, scripture is not silent. It actively disagrees.

It says " the foundation of truth is the church" - so is outside scripture.
So proving your definition wrong again.

Protestants don't seem to get simple logic.

The statements A " all that is in scripture is ( choose your own adjective ) truth"

And B " all ( choose your own adjective) truth is in scripture"

Are not a logical equivalence,

I say choose your own adjective, e.g. Necessary because however you do that creates even more logically disprovable problems for B

As a scientist I cannot accept the cognitive dissonance and logical falsehood implied in sola scriptura, it is part of what led me back from Protestant to evangelical to Rome.


What you just explained is not Sola Scriptura but eisegesis.

Perhaps a definition is in order:

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNAstructures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scripturaclaim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean?

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of Faith
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Goatee
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I just recommended he read the Bible on his own, guess that can be offensive to some.

It is, unfortunately, offensive to a lot of people. I wish Christians would all read and study the Bible for themselves, however, it changes everything. :)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dan61861
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It is, unfortunately, offensive to a lot of people. I wish Christians would all read and study the Bible for themselves, however, it changes everything. :)
We do read it . And it does change life.

And on that we can agree.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
We do read it . And it does change life.

And on that we can agree.

I wasn't speaking of you or anyone else specifically. I am glad you read it though, so do I. :)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.