Martin Luther - Prophet or Heretic?

[barryatlake]

Relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

 

[Albion]

Relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea

Let's see...

The word of God (which is what even your church says it believes about the Bible) isn't to be considered as reliable as something said or written by mere men.


When you can justify that POV, you will have dealt with the real issue here.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahushua relied on the Torah, Scripture, alone, and rebuked the religious leaders then and now for their traditions that oppose the Word of Yhvh.
The religious leaders in power hated Him and had Him , the Messiah, CRUCIFIED, ... ... ... ..

 

[Job8]

Now if the RCC, the EOC and the OOC could unite into one Apostolic Church, then Protestants might be forced to seriously re-think their position.

Not really. The RCC, the EOC, and the OOC abandoned true New Testament Christianity and enthroned "the doctrines of men". "Tradition" was placed on an equal footing with Scripture. Actually a higher position than Scripture, since tradition has governed these churches more than Scripture.

And Mary took a position in these churches far out of proportion to her role as noted in Scripture. God cannot have a mother, but the Greek churches made her theotokos = Mother of God, contrary to Scripture. "Mother of Jesus" is what Scripture says, not "Mother of God" (who is the triune Godhead).

Luther was a heretic in the eyes of the RCC, but he was a saint in the eyes of God. Why? Because he searched the Scriptures and put His faith in God and in Christ, and preached that salvation was purely by GRACE through faith in the Person and finished work of Christ. This fundamental doctrine was abandoned by all the "traditional" churches, and re-instated by the Reformers. Luther's major contribution to Christianity was his German translation of the Bible, which closely resembles the KJV (another Reformation Bible).

What the Reformers failed to do was to take Christians all the way back to true New Testament Christianity. Therefore the Reformers persecuted and killed the Anabaptists, who rejected infant baptism, who rejected baptismal regeneration, and who held to believers' baptism by immersion (as taught in the NT). Thus "Protestantism" also failed (not to mention the Calvinism that permeated Protestantism and distorted the true Gospel).

If Christians today want the Truth, they must go strictly by what is written, as Christ went strictly by what it written, and defeated Satan thereby.

 

[Albion]

Not really.

I agree. I can't see why it would make any difference to Protestants whether the Catholic churches get together or continue being separated from each other.

 

[barryatlake]

Job8 you say that Luther corrected Jesus when Luther changed the Church that Jesus founded, you haven't a clue in understanding that Jesus said that nothing can destroy His Church of Matt.16; 15-19 Jesus promised that even the gates of hell shall never prevail against His Catholic/Apostolic Church.
You also wrote: " it was Martin Luther who finally stood up to the Church and reclaimed the true Bible for Christians." there isn't any truth to your statement.

There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

 

[Job8]

Job8 you say that Luther corrected Jesus when Luther changed the Church that Jesus founded, you haven't a clue in understanding that Jesus said that nothing can destroy His Church of Matt.16; 15-19 Jesus promised that even the gates of hell shall never prevail against His Catholic/Apostolic Church.
You also wrote: " it was Martin Luther who finally stood up to the Church and reclaimed the true Bible for Christians." there isn't any truth to your statement.

There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.

It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw" because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

Barry,

Please read what I wrote about Martin Luther above. It does not correspond to what you have just stated here. My comments on the canon of Scripture were quite different. Please check those again in a different thread.

When Christ said that nothing could destroy His Church, He was not necessarily referring to the RCC. His Church is ALL the redeemed of all ages, with Jew and Gentile in one Body. Many of those are outside the RCC.

 

[barryatlake]

Job8, what I wrote was true. Jesus formed only One "particular' Church, and that church is based only on His apostles, what He taught to them and what they taught to their replacements, then later that very same apostolic church compile only those Books that were Canonical.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Job8, what I wrote was true. Jesus formed only One "particular' Church, and that church is based only on His apostles, what He taught to them and what they taught to their replacements, then later that very same apostolic church compile only those Books that were Canonical.

If, by "only One 'particular Church'", you imply a single religious bureaucracy (such as your own) you are gravely mistaken. However, if you mean a called-out body of believers in Jesus Christ who are being built into the temple of God, then you are spot on.

 

[barryatlake]

I am spot on with His chosen apostles/successors, read Luke 10:16 and Matt. 18: 18; 2,75-77, 126 ]

 

[Albion]

If, by "only One 'particular Church'", you imply a single religious bureaucracy (such as your own) you are gravely mistaken. However, if you mean a called-out body of believers in Jesus Christ who are being built into the temple of God, then you are spot on.

In essence, that's IT. There isn't much more that can be added. The idea that Christ founded one more "mystery religion" is exactly what the Apostolic church contended against. It's also one reason why the church of Christ won out over the many mystery religions that were to be found in the Roman world at that time and which competed against the church.

 

[VolRaider]

you're very mislead by whatever spirit is influencing you. Jesus gave only His Apostles /Successors His own authority to teach and to govern--- not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders'' father''. In doing so we follow Paul's example: ''I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel'' [ 1 Cor. 4: 15 ]
Those called- body of believers that bbbbbbb wrote about are the result of the Apostolic Teaching found only in Christ's Universal [ meaning Catholic ] Apostolic Church formed by Jesus . Jesus only left us with a singular Apostolic Church not a mess of conflicting churches as we find from the 16TH Century forward. Only the true believers are found in Christ's Catholic / Apostolic Church, no matter how many times you try and deny the workings of Jesus.[/QUOT

Christ's One True Catholic/Apostolic Church. That sounds familiar. Think I read that in the Catholic forum. And the Eastern Orthodox forum. Oh yeah, and the Oriental Orthodox one as well.

 

[bbbbbbb]

you're very mislead by whatever spirit is influencing you. Jesus gave only His Apostles /Successors His own authority to teach and to govern--- not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders'' father''. In doing so we follow Paul's example: ''I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel'' [ 1 Cor. 4: 15 ]
Those called- body of believers that bbbbbbb wrote about are the result of the Apostolic Teaching found only in Christ's Universal [ meaning Catholic ] Apostolic Church formed by Jesus . Jesus only left us with a singular Apostolic Church not a mess of conflicting churches as we find from the 16TH Century forward. Only the true believers are found in Christ's Catholic / Apostolic Church, no matter how many times you try and deny the workings of Jesus.

So, you apparently believe that either the Eastern Orthodox churches don't exist or that the Great Schism never happened.

 

[barryatlake]

I see where you are hindered by comprehension discernment. I wrote that it [ the Catholic/Apostolic Church ]is the only Apostolic Church that has been with us for the past two- thousand years , all other apostolic churches started years later.

So I stand with my post #52--

you're very mislead by whatever spirit is influencing you. Jesus gave only His Apostles /Successors His own authority to teach and to govern--- not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders'' father''. In doing so we follow Paul's example: ''I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel'' [ 1 Cor. 4: 15 ]
Those called- body of believers that bbbbbbb wrote about are the result of the Apostolic Teaching found only in Christ's Universal [ meaning Catholic ] Apostolic Church formed by Jesus . Jesus only left us with a singular Apostolic Church not a mess of conflicting churches as we find from the 16TH Century forward. Only the true believers are found in Christ's Catholic / Apostolic Church, no matter how many times you try and deny the workings of Jesus.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I see where you are hindered by comprehension discernment. I wrote that it [ the Catholic/Apostolic Church ]is the only Apostolic Church that has been with us for the past two- thousand years , all other apostolic churches started years later.

So I stand with my post #52--

you're very mislead by whatever spirit is influencing you. Jesus gave only His Apostles /Successors His own authority to teach and to govern--- not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders'' father''. In doing so we follow Paul's example: ''I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel'' [ 1 Cor. 4: 15 ]
Those called- body of believers that bbbbbbb wrote about are the result of the Apostolic Teaching found only in Christ's Universal [ meaning Catholic ] Apostolic Church formed by Jesus . Jesus only left us with a singular Apostolic Church not a mess of conflicting churches as we find from the 16TH Century forward. Only the true believers are found in Christ's Catholic / Apostolic Church, no matter how many times you try and deny the workings of Jesus.

Each and every Apostolic Church believes that it is the one true church and your denomination has no valid claim to the exclusive use of that title.

 

[Rhamiel]

Each and every Apostolic Church believes that it is the one true church and your denomination has no valid claim to the exclusive use of that title.

the fact that multiple individuals (or organizations in this case) make mutually exclusive claims means that either all of them are mistaken
or one is correct and the rest are mistaken

Each and every religion claims to be true
this does not mean that all of them are false, we all believe that Christianity is true and so we are not bothered by the claims of Muslims or Hindus or Jews

we can talk of the validity of the claim latter

 

[Job8]

the fact that multiple individuals (or organizations in this case) make mutually exclusive claims means that either all of them are mistaken or one is correct and the rest are mistaken

The Reformers realized that the RCC was mistaken and thus came out of it. The EOC realized that the RCC was mistaken about the claims of the papacy, and separated from it. So now we have large numbers of Christians who have recognized that there is a problem with RCC. Perhaps it is time for you to ask yourself "How is it that so many Christians do not accept our claims, especially those who study the Scriptures closely. And is it really true that Peter was the first pope, or is this whole thing a legend created by those who wished to wield power without scriptural sanction?"

 

[bbbbbbb]

the fact that multiple individuals (or organizations in this case) make mutually exclusive claims means that either all of them are mistaken
or one is correct and the rest are mistaken

Each and every religion claims to be true
this does not mean that all of them are false, we all believe that Christianity is true and so we are not bothered by the claims of Muslims or Hindus or Jews

we can talk of the validity of the claim latter

There is the real possibility, as well, that none are true because they have all missed the point of what constitutes the Church of God - either it is a religious bureaucracy or it is a called-out body of believers in Jesus Christ united by God, the Holy Spirit, who knows who are His (John 10:27-29).

27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

 

[Rhamiel]

The Reformers realized that the RCC was mistaken and thus came out of it. The EOC realized that the RCC was mistaken about the claims of the papacy, and separated from it. So now we have large numbers of Christians who have recognized that there is a problem with RCC. Perhaps it is time for you to ask yourself "How is it that so many Christians do not accept our claims, especially those who study the Scriptures closely. And is it really true that Peter was the first pope, or is this whole thing a legend created by those who wished to wield power without scriptural sanction?"

emphasis mine

well since there are more Catholics then Protestants
maybe you should ask why so many people do accept our claims?
especially those who study Scripture closely
many many Protestants have been led to the Catholic Church by going deep into scripture

 

[VolRaider]

emphasis mine

well since there are more Catholics then Protestants
maybe you should ask why so many people do accept our claims?
especially those who study Scripture closely
many many Protestants have been led to the Catholic Church by going deep into scripture

Vice versa as well, though. Which proves a point I've made over and over - good and bad with every church.