Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[Phil 1:21]

(duplicate)

 

[Phil 1:21]

Did you miss the part about an excommunicant being guilty of His body and blood by receiving the sacrament?

No, but apparently I missed the part where you explained the repercussions of that according to the RCC.

 

[jamesbond007]

I didn't know there was confusion about the Sabbath? It's always been Saturday..the last day. The Church started celebrating the Lord's day, coinciding with the first day of the week when he rose from the dead. This is Sunday. Going back to earliest church fathers, like the epistles of Barnabas (1st or 2nd cent). I suppose when some want to call this Sabbath, that's fair though.. and confusing.

Well, one of my local churches is famous throughout the US (world?) for worshiping on the Sabbath (SDA), and claims in the end days the antichrist will change the day of worship and make it law. I suppose this is Sunday. This would be an example of going against SDA dogma. Personally, I try to have one day of rest even though it may not be on Saturday.

(I know about the new covenant.)

ETA: This is an example of why Scripture isn't clear.

 

[FenderTL5]

Luther's quotes? I would have to look them up again, they are not that obscure, you find them,

Luther never said what you quoted or alluded to..

Out of curiosity, I searched. The best I can tell that particular quote attributed to Luther, in full is:
"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."- Martin Luther

I have yet to find the source.

 

[redleghunter]

Out of curiosity, I searched. The best I can tell that particular quote attributed to Luther, in full is:
"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."- Martin Luther

I have yet to find the source.

Wow, Maybe that should be a 'sticky' note on the Controversial Christian Theology forum.

 

[FenderTL5]

Wow, Maybe that should be a 'sticky' note on the Controversial Christian Theology forum.

I'm still searching and the only attribution I can find is:
1525 in his "Letter to the Christians of Antwerp" (de Wette, III, 61), that "there are as many sects and creeds in Germany as heads. One will have no baptism; another denies the sacrament, another asserts that there is another world between this and the last day, some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that. No lout is so boorish but, if a fancy enters his head, he must think that the Holy Ghost has entered into him, and that he is to be a prophet"

 

[straykat]

Luther and Melancthon actually conversed with Constantinople at one point. History would have turned out much better if he had converted instead.. lol. But it was not meant to be. And I got a feeling that the last thing he especially wanted was for people to be literally named after him (Lutheran). I see him first of all as a struggling Catholic.

 

[FenderTL5]

Luther and Melancthon actually conversed with Constantinople at one point..

Yes, I read/heard quite a bit about that somewhat recently.
The Protestant Reformation and the Christian East

 

[FenderTL5]

 

[redleghunter]

View attachment 226432

Thanks. I know you did not make the claim, but the above is exhibit 1 of how RC apologists have clipped quotes from Luther and make them say what they want them to say.

For example, on RC up thread claimed Luther came to regret the Reformation later in his life before he died and alluded to this quote. What is interesting what you posted above was from a letter Luther wrote in 1525 during the German Peasants revolt long before he died (1546).

Here's the letter within context where Luther is actually addressing the heresies of the Anabaptist movement in Germany not adhering to Scriptures nor church history:

"Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp."
We believed, during the reign of the pope, that the spirits which make a noise and disturbance in the night, were those of the souls of men, who after death, return and wander about in expiation of their sins. This error, thank God, has been discovered by the Gospel, and it is known at present, that they are not the souls of men, but nothing else than those malicious devils who used to deceive men by false answers. It is they that have brought so much idolatry into the world.The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines. This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper; a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment ; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God ; some say this, others that ; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.

I must cite one instance, by way of exemplification, for I have plenty to do with these sort of spirits. There is not one of them that does think himself more learned than Luther; they all try to win their spurs against me; and would to heaven that they were all such as they think themselves, and that I were nothing! The one of whom I speak assured me, amongst other things, that lie was sent to me by the God of heaven and earth, and talked most magnificently, but the clown peeped through all. At last, he ordered me to read the books of Moses. I asked for a sign in confirmation of this order, ' It is,' said he, ' written in the gospel of St. John.' By this time I had heard enough, and I told him, to come again, for that we should not have time, just now, to read the books of Moses. . . .

I have plenty to do in the course of the year with these poor people: the devil could not have found a better pretext for tormenting me. As yet the world had been full of those clamorous spirits without bodies, who oppressed the souls of men; now they have bodies, and give themselves out for living angels . . .When the pope reigned we heard nothing of these troubles. The strong one (the devil) was in peace in his fortress; but now that a stronger one than he is come, and prevails against him and drives him out, as the Gospel says, he storms and comes forth with noise and fury.


Dear friends, one of these spirits of disorder has come amongst you in flesh and blood; he would lead you astray with the inventions of his pride: beware of him.First, he tells you that all men have the Holy Ghost. Secondly, that the Holy Ghost is nothing more than our reason and our understanding. Thirdly, that all men have faith. Fourthly, that there is no hell, that at least the flesh only will be damned. Fifthly, that all souls will enjoy eternal life. Sixthly, that nature itself teaches us to do to our neighbour what we would he should do to us ; this he calls faith. Seventhly, that the law is not violated by concupiscence, so long as we are not consenting to the pleasure. Eighthly, that he that has not the Holy Ghost, is also without sin, for he is destitute of reason.All these are audacious propositions, vain imaginations; if we except the seventh, the others are not worthy of reply. . . .It is sufficient for us to know that God wills no sin. As to his sufferance of sin, we ought not to approach the question. The servant is not to know his master's secrets, simply his master's orders: how much less should a poor creature attempt to scrutinize or sound the mysteries and the majesty of the Creator ? . . ." To learn the law of God, and to know his soul Jesus Christ, is sufficient to absorb the whole of life. . . . A.D. 1525." (Luth. Werke,tom. ii. p. 61,sqq.)​

Bolded and underlined above third paragraph completely changes the context speciously claimed by Roman apologists. As Luther historian James Swann mentions:

First, it should be obvious the quote is being used out of context. Luther isn’t talking about the devastating effect of sola scriptura. He’s talking about the devastating effect of the devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness.
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther: "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads..."
​

This is why I ask for the Luther quote sources. Many Roman Catholics have been parroting out of context quotes for hundreds of years. Luther's Table Talks are sometimes treated in Tweet fashion by his detractors.

 

[FenderTL5]

Thanks. I know you did make the claim..

It wasn't my claim. I was just trying to dig the quote out of history - if it existed.

Oh... and if anyone reads German, this could be the source (linkage)

 

[redleghunter]

It wasn't my claim. I was just trying to dig the quote out of history - if it existed.

Oh... and if anyone reads German, this could be the source (linkage)

Yikes, I meant did not make the claim. I will fix my post. A thousand pardons Fender.

 

[thecolorsblend]

No, but apparently I missed the part where you explained the repercussions of that according to the RCC.

Excommunication, as I've said, places one outside of communion with the Church. In a broad sense, this person would be in mortal sin. If that person dies without repenting, they're going to Hell.

If this person survives long enough to receive the Eucharist unworthily and then dies without repenting, not only is he going to Hell but he's going there with the guilt of Our Lord's body and blood on his account. Thus his judgment and punishment are likely to be even harsher because he ate and drank judgment upon himself.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Excommunication, as I've said, places one outside of communion with the Church. In a broad sense, this person would be in mortal sin. If that person dies without repenting, they're going to Hell.

If this person survives long enough to receive the Eucharist unworthily and then dies without repenting, not only is he going to Hell but he's going there with the guilt of Our Lord's body and blood on his account. Thus his judgment and punishment are likely to be even harsher because he ate and drank judgment upon himself.

So, correct me if I'm wrong...those who reject any of the RCC dogmas have self-excommunicated themselves. If they die still rejecting any of the RCC's dogmas they go to Hell.

So in a practical sense, Let's say Tommy doesn't believe in the assumption of Mary. That would mean he self-excommunicated himself from the RCC. Now if Tommy dies before he for some reason changes his mind about the assumption of Mary he's going to Hell? Now let's say Tommy has taken communion in a Catholic church while not believing in the assumption of Mary. He goes to, like, Hell 2.0?

Is this really what the RCC teaches?

 

[thecolorsblend]

So, correct me if I'm wrong...those who reject any of the RCC dogmas have self-excommunicated themselves. If they die still rejecting any of the RCC's dogmas they go to Hell.

So in a practical sense, Let's say Tommy doesn't believe in the assumption of Mary. That would mean he self-excommunicated himself from the RCC. Now if Tommy dies before he for some reason changes his mind about the assumption of Mary he's going to Hell? Now let's say Tommy has taken communion in a Catholic church while not believing in the assumption of Mary. He goes to, like, Hell 2.0?

Is this really what the RCC teaches?

I can't be sure if your gross oversimplification is sincere or an attempt at trolling.

In any event, "Hell 2.0"? I must ask, and with all sincerity, do you not recognize that degrees of culpability, sin and punishment exist?

The fact is that not all sins are equally weighted and not all judgments are equally harsh. By way of example, it's bad to steal $1 from somebody. It's worse to steal $1 million from somebody.

Whatever caused somebody's excommunication is, as I've said, already bad enough. But adding to the sins for which they'll be held responsible the guilt of Our Lord's body and blood as well results in a harsher punishment.

Now, as I've found myself saying to a lot of people lately, it's really irrelevant if Protestants agree with the above thought processes. The first, last and only thing that matters is that Catholics believe that.

We have formalized and systematic teachings. There are penalties for committing sins and doing the wrong thing. The Church has authority to instruct and discipline the faithful and it also has the ability to actually punish them.

I brought up my questions about how Protestant ecclesial communities handle these matters specifically to compare them to how the Church handles them. The policies and teachings which Protestant ecclesial communities have are (and, again, I try to say this with respect) rather toothless compared to the Church's policies and teachings.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I can't be sure if your gross oversimplification is sincere or an attempt at trolling.

I’ve been asking the regular Catholic posters here for days to explain what the church teaches happens to those who fail to believe any of their dogmas (I've asked you several times). Up until your previous post it’s been radio silence. I have to wonder why folks insist on dancing around the subject.

In any event, "Hell 2.0"? I must ask, and with all sincerity, do you not recognize that degrees of culpability, sin and punishment exist?

The fact is that not all sins are equally weighted and not all judgments are equally harsh. By way of example, it's bad to steal $1 from somebody. It's worse to steal $1 million from somebody.

Whatever caused somebody's excommunication is, as I've said, already bad enough. But adding to the sins for which they'll be held responsible the guilt of Our Lord's body and blood as well results in a harsher punishment.

Your description of Hell and a worse Hell sounds more like Dante than Scripture.

Now, as I've found myself saying to a lot of people lately, it's really irrelevant if Protestants agree with the above thought processes. The first, last and only thing that matters is that Catholics believe that.

So the RCC teaches that their dogmas only apply to Catholics? How does this work? Do they believe on judgement day God asks if you’re Catholic or Protestant and grades differently?

- Side note: I have a stand-in for me on judgement day…Jesus.

We have formalized and systematic teachings. There are penalties for committing sins and doing the wrong thing. The Church has authority to instruct and discipline the faithful and it also has the ability to actually punish them.

I brought up my questions about how Protestant ecclesial communities handle these matters specifically to compare them to how the Church handles them. The policies and teachings which Protestant ecclesial communities have are (and, again, I try to say this with respect) rather toothless compared to the Church's policies and teachings.

Well, it seems the only “teeth” in the RCC’s teachings is their threat to send people to Hell for not believing in things like the perpetual virginity of Mary and that it is profitable to venerate the dead body parts of saints. Seeing as this is completely unbiblical, I’d say toothless would be a compliment.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Your description of Hell and a worse Hell sounds more like Dante than Scripture.

So the RCC teaches that their dogmas only apply to Catholics? How does this work? Do they believe on judgement day God asks if you’re Catholic or Protestant and grades differently?

- Side note: I have a stand-in for me on judgement day…Jesus.

Well, it seems the only “teeth” in the RCC’s teachings is their threat to send people to Hell for not believing in things like the perpetual virginity of Mary and that it is profitable to venerate the dead body parts of saints. Seeing as this is completely unbiblical, I’d say toothless would be a compliment.

We're done.

 

[Cis.jd]

I don't remember calling James an epistle of straw, but your straw man is evident.

Martin Luther claimed it an "epistle of straw".

I'm sure Irenaeus knew all 27 apostolic writings. He used 25 of them to be precise.

He only knew 3 but there were a lot of different writings other than the 27.

The manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi dates to around A.D. 340 though the original composition of the Gospel of Thomas was definitely before that time probably sometime around A.D. 140 to 180. Which is close to 100 years after the apostolic era.

Nope. It also believed to be around the 1st century, just compiled around AD 140.

Have you actually read the supposed gospel of Thomas? It's like reading the Book of Mormon.

I have. But that is the point of why brought this up, if someone wants to consider this canon and reject lets say James... what point do you have against that? He can clearly go pop up some "verses" to back up his views just like Smith, The founder of Iglesia ni Christo, JW's, and other cults. You've heard random radio evangelicals claiming the end of the world will happen around a specific date, then you have the westborough baptists who go around soldier funerals with signs about those men being in hell... all claim to be right in their views and actions because of "what scripture says".. so you see, every one has their own Sola Scriptura and that is the dangers of Protestantism.

 

[Cis.jd]

duplicate

 

[Cis.jd]

Is it your point you need a self assured infallible magisterium to tell you what is divine revelation and what is not? That the books of the NT became authoritative based on a human decree?

I already pointed out that early Christian souls quoted the NT books long before the canon.

Well this "magisterium" roots back to the apostles. After Jesus left, all the teachings he gave to the apostles where eventually passed down to their apostles and onto right now.

The fact of the matter is, the fact that you accept the 27 books in the canon NT and think that anything added or removed is wrong then you are following the magisterium. The 27 in the NT is the importance of apostolic tradition over Sola Scriptura, and protestantism is the evidence of the dangers of Sola Scriptura. It's Sola Scriptura that ended up splitting Christianity apart that if you go to wiki, you will read that not all christians believe in the trinity or Jesus being God... and those "christian" groups who dont were all originally protestant who ended up leaving whatever of the 5,000 denominations in protestantism because they read the bible and God told them that the teachings about Jesus being God is all false.

You and your Sola Scriptura is the one guilty of adding and almost removing the canon (my reference to Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations in the earlier post) and that is why we have JW's, Mormons, Iglesia Ni Cristo, and other Unitarian cults that claim the scriptures deny the divinity of Jesus.

So yes, it is best to follow the Church because it is the one who carefully identified all the hundreds of books at the table and found the 27 that was the inspired word. It is the one in where the true teachings of Jesus have been passed down from apostle to apostle. Jesus came here to build a church, not a book.

Only Eastern Orthodox has the right to argue against us, you (with your 5k diverse doctrines) don't.