Baptism is NOT symbolic

BBAS 64 · Mar 8, 2005

hoser said:
Once again. There is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone ant that is it, nothing else. It just does not exist.

Good Day, Hoser

This is a false hood and depends on which bible you are using.

Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had "per sola fide." in the translation of Romans 3:28. So if you lived in that time and read Italian bibles "Faith Alone would be there in black and white.

Or if you read Romans 3:28 from the The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had "allein durch den glauben," you would have seen it there also.

So, it did exsit with in the Scripture even those used by those with in your own faith, they just removed it so you would not know.

Even before that time it is quoted:

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): solum ex fide Christi [Opera 20.437, b41]).

Peace to u,

Bill

Bulldog · Mar 8, 2005

hoser said:
This is simply because these are NOT my interpretations. These are the interpretations of the Church.
First lets read this verse. The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. Jn 15:26

Now this one. But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. Jn 16:13

And again, God did not reveal it to previous generations, but now he has revealed it by the Holy Spirit to his Holy Apostles and prophets. Eph 3:5

The Catholic Church is guided to all truths by the Holy Spirit. Yes these verses were given to the Apostles, even though you won't admit it, they were the first leaders of the Church. So these verses apply to the successors to the Apostles as well, the Holy Spirit guided truth just does not END when all the Apostles died. It continues in the Church today and will always continue until the end of time.

How can they "not be your interpetations and be "the church's interpretation" when the Roman Catholic church has never officially intrpeted the verses?

Wild_Fan4Christ · Mar 8, 2005

BBAS 64 said:
[/font][/i]

Now some would suggest that because Mr. Brown says "To the best of my knowledge " that is some ways he lacked knowledge. I will submit that given his years of tenure and the position he held with in the vatican if any one would know it would have been him.

Who was Raymond Brown:

Before his recent death, Raymond Brown was one of the foremost Roman Catholic scholars in the world. On the back of his book Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1990), we read the following about Brown's qualifications:

"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."

The book from which the above citation is taken bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church, meaning that it's supposed to be free of moral and doctrinal error. The RCC never removed him from his office. Instead, he was continually approved by Popes and given high positions within the denomination.

He was with out a doubt the highest level of Scholarship second to no one, with in the denomination in laungues, OT and NT exergesis.

So when some one asserts :

If the Scripture has not been defined in what words and phases mean in the writtings of the author how can one interpret their meanings. The answer is one can not IMHO, words have meanings the ideas and truths put forward in writtings are dependant upon understanding what the words means "their definitions" that is why the writer uses the word he/she does to convey accurate ideas.

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill, why do you continually quote the above?

Quoted from Scott Hahn...

Saint Augustine said, "The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New." This is what is called "Typology," it uncovers a hidden dimension to every page of scripture. God writes "history" ("His-story") the way men write words, and He is the author. Nothing is incidental or accidental in God's providence.

"Typology also free's us from slavish reading of biblical texts and in isolation from Tradition. Typology reveals the richness of passages that had formerly seemed obscure or trivial."

"Yet typology has its own pitfalls, and its abuses have led some scholars far afield and others into heresy."

"When we read scripture in a typological way, we're not trying to crack a code, or solve a puzzle, or impose our own fanciful visions on the inspired word. We're trying to encounter a person. We want to know God, His ways, His plan, His chosen people..."

From Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, On the Interpretation of Dogmas:

"dogma is by definition nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture." "In the dogma of the Church, one is thus concerned with the correct interpretation of the Scriptures."

Dogma then, is the Church's infallible exegesis of scripture.

More quotes from Saint Augustine...

"I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH."
Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.

Click to expand...

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture BUT FROM TRADITION, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary COUNCILS, THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH IS QUITE VITAL TO THE CHURCH."
Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

Click to expand...

"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices NOT FOUND IN THEIR WRITINGS nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves."
St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.

Click to expand...

"Since by Christ's favor we are CATHOLIC Christians:"
St. Augustine, Letter to Vitalis, 217,5,16, 427 A.D.

Click to expand...

"By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH."
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.

Click to expand...

"This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her."
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.

Click to expand...

BBAS 64 · Mar 8, 2005

hoser said:
This is simply because these are NOT my interpretations. These are the interpretations of the Church.
First lets read this verse. The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. Jn 15:26

Now this one. But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. Jn 16:13

And again, God did not reveal it to previous generations, but now he has revealed it by the Holy Spirit to his Holy Apostles and prophets. Eph 3:5

The Catholic Church is guided to all truths by the Holy Spirit. Yes these verses were given to the Apostles, even though you won't admit it, they were the first leaders of the Church. So these verses apply to the successors to the Apostles as well, the Holy Spirit guided truth just does not END when all the Apostles died. It continues in the Church today and will always continue until the end of time.

Good Day, Hoser

Source please, written if you can be intersted in reading the handling of the lanauge "greek".

Thanks,

Bill

InquisitorKind · Mar 8, 2005

Veritas said:
I'm glad to see you say you understand the difference, but if so, why bring this up???

I explained why I brought the example up. I think what I wrote in the context of my discussion with Wild_Fan4Christ is clear; I ask that you reread my comments and their immediate context. If you have further questions after doing so, I will address them as needed.

~Matt

Wild_Fan4Christ · Mar 8, 2005

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Hoser

This is a false hood and depends on which bible you are using.

Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had "per sola fide." in the translation of Romans 3:28. So if you lived in that time and read Italian bibles "Faith Alone would be there in black and white.

Or if you read Romans 3:28 from the The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had "allein durch den glauben," you would have seen it there also.

So, it did exsit with in the Scripture even those used by those with in your own faith, they just removed it so you would not know.

Even before that time it is quoted:

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): solum ex fide Christi [Opera 20.437, b41]).

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill, you are misreading the above from Saint Thomas Aquinas.

"but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law)."

The "works of the law" stated in Rom 3:28 is referring to the Old Testament laws. Read the footnotes on Romans 3:27-31 in your Bible and tell me what this has to do with sola-fide???? This is irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, Don't take things out of context...

Zaac · Mar 8, 2005

Perhaps it's just me. But has anyone else ever wondered why we almost make the Catholic Church into Deity. I've heard more about the "Church" in this thread than I have about Jesus Christ. And THAT is very unsettling.

Does anyone else think THE CHURCH is the Body of Believers and NOT the Catholic Church?

InquisitorKind · Mar 8, 2005

hoser said:
This is simply because these are NOT my interpretations. These are the interpretations of the Church.

You're missing the point and changing the subject. You asked how Protestants can know if their interpretations of the Scriptures are correct over others'. I didn't respond by claiming that those Scripture passages were "NOT my interpretations"; that would have been non-sensical.

The question I asked was how you know that your interpretation of your denomination's teachings is correct over other people's contrary interpretation of those teachings, and I will ask again. How do you know that your interpretation of your denomination's teachings is correct over other people's interpretations of those same teachings that differ from yours? Your answer to this question will refute your position.

~Matt

InquisitorKind · Mar 8, 2005

hoser said:
Now I can say True true to you! Sola-scriptura is absolutely against what the bible teaches itself. It's funny, to truely believe in sola scriptura, then the Bible must explicitly teach the doctrine of sola scriptura. But guess what? It doesn't. Also, to truely believe in sola scriptura, then the Bible MUST tell us which books are supposed to be in the Bible. But guess what? It doesn't.

Sola Scriptura doesn't state that the doctrine must explicitly be found in the Scriptures themselves. Neither does it claim to or need to have a table of contents, since the principle isn't concerned with identifying the extent of God's Word, but with explaining how to handle whatever extent of that Word is currently present. You've already misrepresented Sola Fide in this thread multiple times. Misrepresenting Sola Scriptura as well demonstrates that you are not familiar with Protestant theology, but simply repeating Catholic apologetical misrepresentations of that theology.

~Matt

BBAS 64 · Mar 8, 2005

Wild_Fan4Christ said:
Bill, why do you continually quote the above?

Quoted from Scott Hahn...

From Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, On the Interpretation of Dogmas:

Dogma then, is the Church's infallible exegesis of scripture.

More quotes from Saint Augustine...

Good Day, Wild_fan4Christ

Are you equating Scott Hahn.. with Raymond Brown ? Do you even know who Raymond Brown is? Not that I allways agree with Mr. Brown but Scott Hahn is no Raymond Brown.

As I have posted from the leading biblical scholar and lead exergete of Rome, a exergisis of scripture does not exist. It is true they can pronuce dogma and it is thier dogma, but it is not an exergsis.

Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.
Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peters primacy and authority over the Church not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. Its always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IXs papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

So, the Pope can give an infallible dogma, and be fallible in the reasoning behind such dogma. Sort of like garbage in garbage out as my dad would say.

Peace to u,

Bill

Zaac · Mar 8, 2005

My prayer for Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox is that neither of you institute manmade doctrine that may have people chasing after a Jesus Christ who is not the Christ He says He is.

SPALATIN · Mar 8, 2005

Zaac said:
Perhaps it's just me. But has anyone else ever wondered why we almost make the Catholic Church into Deity. I've heard more about the "Church" in this thread than I have about Jesus Christ. And THAT is very unsettling.

Does anyone else think THE CHURCH is the Body of Believers and NOT the Catholic Church?

Roman Catholics believe that Christ founded the church based on St. Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ. To them the Church holds the keys to death and hades and salvation is found within the confines of the invisible church. Since Christ is head of the church salvation is found in him.

Does this make it easier to understand?

TO RCCers. I hope I got this somewhat correct, but please feel free to jump in and give them the corrections I failed to make.

BBAS 64 · Mar 8, 2005

Wild_Fan4Christ said:
Bill, you are misreading the above from Saint Thomas Aquinas.

The "works of the law" stated in Rom 3:28 is referring to the Old Testament laws. Read the footnotes on Romans 3:27-31 in your Bible and tell me what this has to do with sola-fide???? This is irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, Don't take things out of context...

Good Day, Wild_Fan

The fact is "per sola fide" appears in at least two versions of Scriptures. It was asserted here that is was not in the Scriptures.... that is a falsehood.

Sola Fide is a biblical reality as has been shown in at least two texts.

Bill

hoser · Mar 8, 2005

Romans 3:28 states, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (NKJV). Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Martin Luther reportedly said, "You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paulsay right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text" (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127). This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. One rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). It appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine.

Romans 4:15 states, "because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression" (NKJV). In his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 (O'Hare, p. 201). This presumably was to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law.

http://members.aol.com/cogwriter/luther.htm

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Hoser

This is a false hood and depends on which bible you are using.

Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had "per sola fide." in the translation of Romans 3:28. So if you lived in that time and read Italian bibles "Faith Alone would be there in black and white.

Or if you read Romans 3:28 from the The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had "allein durch den glauben," you would have seen it there also.

So, it did exsit with in the Scripture even those used by those with in your own faith, they just removed it so you would not know.

Even before that time it is quoted:

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): solum ex fide Christi [Opera 20.437, b41]).

Peace to u,

Bill

Find me a legitimate source where the bible says that we are saved by faith alone.

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

Luke 14:13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,
Luke 14:14 and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

Acts 10:31 and said, 'Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.

Acts 10:35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Romans 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works:
Romans 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
Romans 2:8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
Romans 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
Romans 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Romans 2:11 For God shows no partiality.
Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

There's more, but I don't have time.

hoser · Mar 8, 2005

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Wild_Fan

The fact is "per sola fide" appears in at least two versions of Scriptures. It was asserted here that is was not in the Scriptures.... that is a falsehood.

Sola Fide is a biblical reality as has been shown in at least two texts.

Bill

Give me the name of ANY current bible translation by ANY current
Bible publisher that says this. You sir are using bible translations where "only" was purposely put into them to support the "only" claim.

Wild_Fan4Christ · Mar 8, 2005

Wild_Fan4Christ said:
Bill, you are misreading the above from Saint Thomas Aquinas.

The "works of the law" stated in Rom 3:28 is referring to the Old Testament laws. Read the footnotes on Romans 3:27-31 in your Bible and tell me what this has to do with sola-fide???? This is irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, Don't take things out of context...

I also forgot to add to this regarding

Romans 3:28 "...but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law)."

How many of you who quote this verse realize it was Martin Luther who added the word alone to it? Why did he add to it? Because it contradicted his teaching of "sola-fide."

What he, and what YOU are failing to realize is that the Bible strictly prohibits any additions, or removal of scripture for that matter. Look up Proverbs 30:6 - "Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver." He also removed the 7 Deutero-Canon books. Who had the authority to remove 7 books and add words to scripture? No one does, but he did so anyways as he rejected the authority of the Church. He also contradicted his own teaching in following the bible-alone as he threw out some verses and neglected them

It appears to me that Protestants who believe in sola-fide and sola-scriptura have been deceived from Luther's mistake. He realized his mistake and is guilty of them, but that was after the fact and there was already 100's of splits off of the True Church. All of Protestantism can owe their foundations to one man Notice the key word here, MAN, not God.

He, Martin Luther, single handidly opened the door to fallacies. And once the door was opened, there was no stopping it

You're missing the point and changing the subject. You asked how Protestants can know if their interpretations of the Scriptures are correct over others'. I didn't respond by claiming that those Scripture passages were "NOT my interpretations"; that would have been non-sensical.

The question I asked was how you know that your interpretation of your denomination's teachings is correct over other people's contrary interpretation of those teachings, and I will ask again. How do you know that your interpretation of your denomination's teachings is correct over other people's interpretations of those same teachings that differ from yours? Your answer to this question will refute your position.

~Matt

NO, we aren't missing the point. What don't you and every other Protestant understand about Luther's mistakes I posted above?

You say Catholics are wrong because the Pope is a man and is fallible in his teachings. Not so, but anyways. How then can you have a double standard by believing in sola-fide/sola-scriptura with its foundations in a fallible man: Martin Luther?

Do you not see, that all of Protestantism loses all credibility by stating we are wrong when in fact they need not look much further than their own teachings? So from 100's of sects shortly after the Reformation by Luther, to today of over 37,000+ Many have been deceived

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by WORD or by letter of ours." 2Thess 2:15

Good day

BBAS 64 · Mar 8, 2005

hoser said:
Give me the name of ANY current bible translation by ANY current
Bible publisher that says this. You sir are using bible translations where "only" was purposely put into them to support the "only" claim.

Good Day, Hoser

I believe that the two I posted are RC translations that were used in thier time. If you have an other understanding please correct me. I prefaced my comments as such:

This is a false hood and depends on which bible you are using.

I will say the Greek: Demands in context the freely Justified as did Ambrosiaster. By Faith alone freely given as the gift by God.
Rom 3:23 pantev gar hmarton kai usterountai thv dochv tou qeou

Rom 3:24 dikaioumenoi dwrean th autou xariti dia thv apolutrwsewv thv en xristw ihsou

Rom 3:25 on proeqeto o qeov ilasthrion dia athv tsbthv pistewv en tw autou aimati eiv endeicin thv dikaiosunhv autou dia thn paresin twn progegonotwn amarthmatwn

Rom 3:26 en th anoxh tou qeou prov athn endeicin thv dikaiosunhv autou en tw nun kairw eiv to einai auton dikaion kai dikaiounta ton ek pistewv ihsou

Rom 3:27 pou oun h kauxhsiv ecekleisqh dia poiou nomou twn ergwn ouxi alla dia nomou pistewv

Rom 3:28 logizomeqa agar tsboun tsbpistei dikaiousqai apistei anqrwpon xwriv ergwn nomou

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei, through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

Peace to u,

Bill

Bulldog · Mar 8, 2005

edited

BBAS 64 · Mar 8, 2005

Wild_Fan4Christ said:
I also forgot to add to this regarding

Romans 3:28 "...but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law)."

How many of you who quote this verse realize it was Martin Luther who added the word alone to it? Why did he add to it? Because it contradicted his teaching of "sola-fide."

What he, and what YOU are failing to realize is that the Bible strictly prohibits any additions, or removal of scripture for that matter. Look up Proverbs 30:6 - "Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver." He also removed the 7 Deutero-Canon books. Who had the authority to remove 7 books and add words to scripture? No one does, but he did so anyways as he rejected the authority of the Church. He also contradicted his own teaching in following the bible-alone as he threw out some verses and neglected them

It appears to me that Protestants who believe in sola-fide and sola-scriptura have been deceived from Luther's mistake. He realized his mistake and is guilty of them, but that was after the fact and there was already 100's of splits off of the True Church. All of Protestantism can owe their foundations to one man Notice the key word here, MAN, not God.

He, Martin Luther, single handidly opened the door to fallacies. And once the door was opened, there was no stopping it

NO, we aren't missing the point. What don't you and every other Protestant understand about Luther's mistakes I posted above?

You say Catholics are wrong because the Pope is a man and is fallible in his teachings. Not so, but anyways. How then can you have a double standard by believing in sola-fide/sola-scriptura with its foundations in a fallible man: Martin Luther?

Do you not see, that all of Protestantism loses all credibility by stating we are wrong when in fact they need not look much further than their own teachings? So from 100's of sects shortly after the Reformation by Luther, to today of over 37,000+ Many have been deceived

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by WORD or by letter of ours." 2Thess 2:15

Good day

Luther becomes the whipping boy

I have shown two versions of Scripture that pre date Luther.

From a RC historian:

In his commentary on Romans, Roman Catholic Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. comments that Luther was not the first to invoke sola fide in his translation of Romans. ** pp. 360-361 of Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993).

You may wish to pick up that work.

Peace to u,

Bill

InquisitorKind · Mar 8, 2005

Wild_Fan4Christ said:
NO, we aren't missing the point. What don't you and every other Protestant understand about Luther's mistakes I posted above?

What does what you wrote about Luther have to do with our discussion on baptism? I'm not Luther, but even if I was, pointing out his mistakes doesn't refute what I've written in this thread.

You say Catholics are wrong because the Pope is a man and is fallible in his teachings. Not so, but anyways. How then can you have a double standard by believing in sola-fide/sola-scriptura with its foundations in a fallible man: Martin Luther?

Protestants don't think that following fallible men is incorrect in itself; it's the teachings of your denomination that are problematic, not its fallibility.

Do you not see, that all of Protestantism loses all credibility by stating we are wrong when in fact they need not look much further than their own teachings? So from 100's of sects shortly after the Reformation by Luther, to today of over 37,000+ Many have been deceived

Protestantism hasn't been shown to have lost its credibility from your apologetic; poor argumentation generally doesn't do that. However, a loss of credibility does begin when "37,000+" denominations are cited in a false comparison unrelated to the current discussion.

~Matt

Baptism is NOT symbolic

Contributor

Don't Tread on Me

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther

Contributor

hoser

Guest

hoser

Guest

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Don't Tread on Me

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency