![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - July 09 2003 : 04:11:24 AM
|
Well, CT, now we're making progress ... we are back, at least, to a first name basis & direct response. [Maybe I'm starting to grow on you ... ]
"The same can easily be said of you Lainey."
It can be said but would you stake your word upon it being proven? We're not in the realm of opinion here.
"You have yet to seriously refute any charges brought against the Roman Catholic Church, instead you just explain them away as nonsense, since the "holy" Roman Catholic Church could never be wrong, and it would be wrong for good Roman Catholics to think for themselves, and actually, dare I say it,... question to Roman Catholic Church."
There's been no serious charges to refute - only couched pot shots that didn't further the discussion on the origins of the radical doctrine in question. To digress into a defense of Catholicism would be like trying the witness rather than the accused. (The cult vs religion thread is another matter & I'll gladly accommodate the request for refutation on all scores, a process already underway - albeit sporadically.) This discussion has been about sola scriptura - the burden of proof is with those who claim it. I've provided (as did Brother Jim  ) more than sufficient proof positive against it. And you know ... I've managed to think my way through the arguments after all.
Now I'm curious, though. Do you think out for yourself predestination, sola scriptura, the perspicuity of Scripture, the number of Sacraments, the Trinity, baptism, regeneratives vs unregeneratives, salvation alone, faith alone, the elect, salvation, atonement, partial preterism, full preterism, no works, credalism, orthodoxy, tradition, TULIP, & so forth? Do you ever question Calvin's doctrines or even your Reformed Pastor? Do you 'test everything' & 'work out your salvation in fear & trembling'?
"Luther certainly wasn't a moderate."
No, he sure wasn't. But neither were Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Tyndale, etcetera. Heresy & revolution are not typically the work of moderates.
"Seriously now, I think you're giving Luther too much status here."
I don't afford him any status at all. He was a vile & pompous man. However, he did start the thing now at issue. He's the go-to guy on this bible based business. What he said is relevant & essential.
"Most Christians/Protestants/Evangelicals (whatever you want to call them) don't even pay that much attention to Luther, except of course Lutherans"
It is HIS bible, with all HIS spurious editing (you know -the adding to & taking away that has been condemned) that forms the Protestant framework - it is Luther's Canon of Scripture over & above the Canon of Sacred Scripture preserved & venerated by the Catholic Church. If I am wrong produce for me a Protestant bible that contains Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees - show me the seven purged chapters of the Book of Esther, the 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel known as ‘the Song of the Three Children’ ... all were there, in their sacred places until the 16th century crude man impugned them, saying, "Throw it overboard!" Much attention is paid to Luther then, with very little effort. And, while you might know of his excessive embarrassing blights, I don't think the average Protestant (or Catholic) does. Please don't explain away Luther's impact. As unhappy a prospect it may be, he's inseparable from Protestant origins, thought, & development - especially in regards to sola scriptura.
"and Roman Catholics (who are still always trying to discredit him after all these years)."
Trying to discredit him? His disrepute is not even in question & I've been excessively charitable by avoiding his more damning, inexcusable quotes. Not many, if they knew his words, would stand up to be counted alongside him (or wish to declare their discipleship).
"He was just one outspoken reformer among many."
He was not a reformer. He did not reform anything wi |
"Fides et Ratio" |
report to moderator  |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 10 2003 : 10:59:14 PM
|
"That is a valid point & one to consider when digesting quotes. However, in this case, I gave you not the worst, but the best of Luther. I refrained from quoting his voluminous base, perverse, crude, obscene, fixated comments & kept directly to quotes pertaining sola to His Doctrine of Sola Scriptura & His Dogmas, His Teachings, His Creeds, etc. I would not, unless pertinent to a discussion, write or copy his obscenities (for which he was well known, this "chosen from God" dissenter & religion creator) for they are that filthy. The less quotes heard from Luther, the better our ears."
The best of Luther? Certainly there is much better. Try his 95 theses for example. Credited by many scholars as one of the most important documents of religous and social freedom ever written. He wrote with wit and satire, his obscenities were mostly to highlight the obscenities of the Roman Catholic Church. He had devoted his life to the Church as a monk and loved it deeply, and he was deeply offended and betrayed by the obscenity he found in Rome, as any decent human would have been. And yes Rome and the pope was that filthy. Try studying the factual history of the Medieval and Rennaissance Roman Catholic Church (rather than Roman Catholic lies) and you'll get an idea of why Luther was so outraged.
"Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 11 2003 : 3:25:29 PM
|
"An overseer [bishop, elder, presbyter], then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity...he must have a good reputation with those outside the church" - 1 Timothy 3:2-4, 3:7
From Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes by Eamon Duffy
"By contrast [to an earlier Roman bishop who had been martyred], in the later persecution under Diocletian in 303, Pope Marcellinus (296-304?) would cave in to pressure. He surrendered copies of the scriptures and offered sacrifice to the gods. He died a year later in disgrace, and the Roman church set about forgetting him....
In the misery of exile, surrounded by imperial clergy and far from home, Liberius [bishop of Rome] weakened. He agreed to the excommunication of Athanasius [a bishop who defended the deity of Christ], and signed a formula which, while it did not actually repudiate the Nicene Creed, weakened it with the meaningless claim that the Logos [Jesus Christ] was 'like the father in being' and in all things. In 358 he was finally allowed to return to Rome.
He found the city deeply divided. On Liberius' exile in 355, the Emperor had installed a new pope, Liberius' former archdeacon Felix. Consecrated by Arian bishops in the imperial palace in Milan, Felix was an obvious fellow traveller, but imperial patronage was a powerful persuader, and many of the Roman clergy had rallied to him. Constantius was now unwilling simply to repudiate Felix, and commanded that Liberius and he should function as joint bishops....
Liberius' successor Damasus (366-84), who had served as deacon under both Liberius and Felix, would inherit some of the consequences of his
predecessor's exile. His election in 366 was contested, and he was confronted by a rival pope, Ursinus, whom he only got rid of with the help of the city police and a murderous rabble....
Deprived of the support of empire, the papacy became the possession of the great Roman families, a ticket to local dominance for which men were prepared to rape, murder and steal. A third of the popes elected between 872 and 1012 died in suspicious circumstances - John VIII (872-82) bludgeoned to death by his own entourage, Stephen VI (896-7) strangled, Leo V (903) murdered by his successor Sergius III (904-11), John X (914-28) suffocated, Stephen VIII (939-42) horribly mutilated, a fate shared by the Greek antipope John XVI (997-8) who, unfortunately for him, did not die from the removal of his eyes, nose, lips, tongue and hands. Most of these men were manoeuvred into power by a succession of powerful families - the Theophylacts, the Crescentii, the Tusculani. John X, one of the few popes of this period to make a stand against aristocratic domination, was deposed and then murdered in the Castel Sant' Angelo by the Theophylacts, who had appointed him in the first place.
The key figure in both John X's appointment and his deposition was the notorious Theophylact matron, Marozia. She also appointed Leo VI (928) and Stephen VII (928-31), and she had been the mistress of Pope Sergius III, by whom she bore an illegitimate son whom she eventually appointed as Pope John XI (931-6)....
Its [the declining papacy's] symbol is the macabre 'cadaver synod' staged by Stephen VI in January 897, when he put on trial the mummified corpse of his hated predecessor but one, Pope Formosus. The corpse, dressed in pontifical vestments and propped up on a throne, was found guilty of perjury and other crimes, was mutilated by having the fingers used in blessings hacked off, and was then tossed into the Tiber. Stephen himself was subsequently deposed by the disgusted Roman crowd, and strangled in prison....
Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 11 2003 : 5:55:04 PM
|
Thanks for the book recommendation!
I'll use the magnaminous occasion given by CT to once again beg alms, alms, alms for the board. The book from which CT has culled such tempting glimpses of personal papal portraits is highly recommended (by me) & can be purchased at amazon.com via our Book Store pages. (A penny in the coffer ... you know.)
I intended to explain to you, CT, later tonight that which you are carelessly transparent about - your utter lack of understanding of papal infallibility. Your zealous prejudice seems to blind you so completely that you can not see the forest but for the trees.
I'll take it up later, for now ... a review of this wonderful expose on the popes, written by a Catholic Scholar, who obviously can & does think for himself despite his great Catholic handicap (not that I share this view), & can & does share it both candidly & wittingly.
"Amazon.com
Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, by Eamon Duffy, is a wonder of comprehensive compression--a sumptuously illustrated, one-volume history of one of the most influential human institutions in world history. Duffy's lively portraits of the 261 scholars, scoundrels, and spiritual guides who have led the Roman Catholic Church are embedded in six historical essays that proceed chronologically from St. Peter to John Paul II. Duffy, a reader in church history and fellow at Cambridge, writes in the mannered yet affable tone of an avuncular English don. His narrative and arguments convey his own Catholic conviction that "the story of the popes is a crucial dimension of the providential care of God for humankind throughout history." Yet he also offers candid assessments of papal moral failings, including spectacular failures such as the orchestration of the Spanish Inquisition and the willed ignorance of Germany's Third Reich. Duffy's glossary of theological terms ensures that no secular reader will be lost in Christian arcana, and his excellent bibliographical essay will help motivated students zero in on the best resources for learning more about any period of Catholic history. For readers primarily concerned with current events, his analysis of John Paul II's papacy is extraordinarily useful and refreshingly free of cant. "To many people Pope John Paul seems a backward-looking figure, a man attempting to force a champagne cork back into the bottle," Duffy writes. "To others, he points the way towards a recovery of balance, a restoration of order and true faith in the flux of time. Only time, and the next conclave, will reveal which of these directions in their long walk through history the heirs of St. Peter will take." --Michael Joseph Gross --" |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 11 2003 : 8:46:02 PM
|
| Oh,I see now,1Tim 3:2-4,3:7 pertains to Luther.Read about the Old Covenant in the O.T. How could God have those folks as the chosen people.The new Isreal,the Catholic Church,had and has problems which involves the human element just like good old Isreal with David,Solomon and the boys.Gold is still gold even in impure hands.So I guess all the corruption stopped with the Protestant Revolt? Did I hear Luther ordering the slaughter of peasants? Did I hear Calvin ordering someone to get burned? |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 11 2003 : 9:10:28 PM
|
| Did I hear Luther approving a bigamous relationship involving Phillip of Hesse.Dear Calvin,who was Micheal Servetus? Men of reform and compassion? Watch those popes! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Many Flags
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 13 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 11 2003 : 9:12:49 PM
|
Ok, I was going to jump in here someplace, but there are so many quotes going all different ways (and no one would really believe that Good Old Marty Luther's 95 Theses would appear in Mohicanland!!), that I'm not sure what this "controversy" is all about. Having a family which founded 4 Lutheran congregations here in central Pennsylvania, having a Lutheran minister as a father-in-law, "moi" (sorry for the French) having been headed toward the Lutheran seminary twice (I should have heeded the call considering the last three months I've had as an educator!!), and having taught catechism class for several years in my Lutheran congregation, I thought I could add something to this "controversary". Pray tell, what is the bottom line in this discussion, no quotes, please, just plain old opinions!!
Your servant,
Dr. Uncle Mark (lay minister for the King's troops as I preach Episcopalian (light Catholic), but in battle I quote John Knox!) Ok, that should rattle dem dry bones of Ezekiel's dream....... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 11 2003 : 11:20:10 PM
|
| Well,we started off with the Canon of Scripture and showed that the Catholic Church was responsible for the 27 books of the N.T.We would not know for sure what the canon of the N.T. would be if it wasn't for the Decree of Damasus and the Council of Rome in 382A.D.Also followed by Hippo and Carthage.One needs to read the whole Decree by Pope(oh no a pope!)Damasus in order to appreciate the authority of the Church and the Head Apostolic see in Rome by the successor of Peter.We also provided enough quotes by early Church Fathers about Peter being in Rome.Now we are heading towards different waters.Oh,No! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 12 2003 : 02:10:38 AM
|
Uncle Mark,
Having come out of Penn's Woods from Congregationalists & Presbyterians, & descending from Long Island's first English settlers, fine Puritans all, & from Staten Island's upstanding French Calvinists ... here I stand ... an avowed Papist in the very fullest sense of the word to defend our Romish superstitions so long as they are contradicted & impugned ... I could do no other, so help me God. Amen.
The controversy is of the very finest tradition ... assertion, challenge, a multitude of Scripture, assertion disproved, challenge side-stepped, a multitude of Scripture ... more multitudes of Scripture, & straw man epistles, of course.
I expect this is gonna take awhile ... such is the nature of 'controversy.' |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 12 2003 : 02:42:42 AM
|
What Has Sola Scriptura To Do With Papal Infallibility?
Nothing. Nonetheless, in disconnected fashion, it is inevitably raised and ridiculed from
out of nowhere as if it somehow bears upon proving the disproved folly of Bible Only. It is
a diversion, meant to turn attention away from the subject, which is in this case, a claim
requiring a defense of Sola Scriptura not yet offered. Proofs against it - from Apostolic,
Patristic, & Scriptural writings have gone unanswered. They usually do. Logic, history, &
tradition have declared the doctrine nothing more than the invention of justification
seeking men. But why bother ourselves with such difficulties? Let’s require a proof of
Papal Infallibility instead! After all, the thinking goes, everyone knows the late medieval
church was wholly corrupt & therefore we press for a defense of that instead of a defense
of the subject at hand. Very well. In the interest of ecumenical edification, we should
charitably oblige the question.
“We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block and unto the Gentiles
foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God
and the wisdom of God.” - 1 Cor.
“Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” - Matt. 28
“I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you
forever, the Spirit of truth ... But when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will teach you
all truth.” - John 14,16
Christianity is the revelation of God, not a philosophy or wisdom of men, nor merely a
system of man-reasoned goodness. It was communicated by Christ to the Apostles, and by
the Apostles through the Holy Spirit, to all. Ultimately, it is an act of faith that embraces
Christianity because, ultimately, it is faith in God’s revelation. How will the revelation of
God that is the promise of salvation be preserved faithfully, fully, & inerrantly - & how
will it be preached to the world, generation upon generation, faithfully, fully, & inerrantly
if not guided by Christ in the “pillar and ground of truth” which is the visible Church of
Christ? Only through an infallible teaching authority of the Church is this even
conceptually possible. Through the Church it is God who reveals His truths, not men. This
is the Divine side of the Church, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which causes her to
think Christ’s thoughts & teach His doctrines with absolute confidence of His promise to
be with her always. Where the divine authority of the Church has been rejected, so has the
preservation of full, faithful, inerrant Christian theology been rejected.
To whom did Christ promise this infallible teaching authority? Not to every man
confessing his faith, obviously, for there were questions, disputes, & heresies arising
immediately. Disputes that required an authoritative decision that was preserved from
error in matters of faith & morals, for after all, mens’ souls depended upon a right & faith
filled pronouncement - or doctrine. It was St. Peter & the other Apostles, & their
sucessors, the Pope & the Bishops of the Church. This is how it always was in the Church,
and how it remains to this day. Christ founded a visible, holy, infallible Church through
which He proposes to each of us the means of eternal life. He did not become man, suffer,
& die just to briefly get our attention & just to leave us in centuries of darkness. He did
not preach for the edification of a few. He did not abandon His Church on Pentecost, nor
did He end it with the completion of the Apostolic Age. He founded a visible Church with
a visible structure to continue the work of His kingdom on earth unto the consummation
of the world. The Catholic Church, & the Catholic Church alone, has the infallible
teaching authority of Christ’s doctrines so men will always hear the proposals of God ...
fully, faithfully, & inerrantly.
With an infallible teaching body, |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 12 2003 : 12:37:27 PM
|
"Let no one think that virtuous men and good Christians ever leave the bosom of the Church; it is not the wheat that the wind lifts, but the chaff; trees deeply rooted are not blown down by the breeze, but those which have no roots. It is rotten fruits that fall off the trees, not sound ones; bad Catholics become heretics, as sickness is engendered by bad humors. At first, faith languishes in them, because of their vices; then it becomes sick; next it dies; because, since sin is essentially a blindness of spirit, the more a man sins, the more he is blinded; his faith grows weaker and weaker; the light of this divine torch decreases, and soon the least wind of temptation or doubt suffices to extinguish it." - St. Cyprian
Good - you now change your position & admit Martin Luther IS paid far more attention than you previously stated, and not only by Lutherans. So much so that you are willing to impugn with sweeping ascerbity the Church founded by Christ in favor of selectively exalting one man gone terribly astray. The bemusing 95 Theses; a thing of man in which
you place great confidence- some will point to these enumerations for debate as proof of Luther’s desire for dialogue on reform & see within them affirmations of Papal & Church authority, as well as penance, remission of sin, etc. Others cite the presence of witty, sarcastic jabs phrased within heretical views. Whatever he initially sought to bring about, once he learned of the academic criticisms his statements had generated, his pride was seriously injured and it was downhill from there. He fumed with vitriolic indignation & unbridled
obstinance overwhelmed his already unstable, hot tempered, tortured countenance. To understand Martin Luther one must analyze from a psychological perspective for he was mad. Tragically, pitifully mad. To understand the ‘Reformation’ as it is incorrectly called,one must analyze it from a political perspective for that was its nature & motive.
Luther was a poor imitator of greater men (and women) already about the real business of reforming the incredible corruption of men & the laxity of discipline widespread at that time. Citing the abuses of indulgences, simony, or papal corruption as reason or justification for Luther’s actions is disingenuous for Luther made it abundantly clear (sufficiently perspicuous?) in his highly colored & shockingly crude polemics that he cared nothing at all about corruption. He simply had ‘decided’ the Church had been teaching error for 1500 years & he was the man to set them right. That’s it. Hadn't Luther read Ecclesiastes? There's nothing new under the sun ...
"Credited by many scholars as one of the most important documents of religous and social freedom ever written."
Yes ... unnamed scholars again, is it? They seem to be everywhere & nowhere all at once. Which is it? Luther is not taken seriously by most Protestants - only Lutherans & Catholics give him status? Or, is he the author of “one of the most important documents of religious and social freedom ever written”? The Ninety-Five Theses of Doctor Martin Luther ... the "Evangelical Liberty" document where lukewarm Christians learned they were 'freed' from the traditions & mysteries of the faith preserved & bequeathed for all eternity, freed to pursue whatever passions they sought as they were no longer bound by
Christian morality, freed to sin freely as faith alone in their salvation would automatically grant their salvation, & freed to practice whatever fool's doctrine blew in the wind since they had so mutilated the divine doctrines of Christianity it had become an every man for himself theology. For the first time in 1500 years, Christians were set loose like ravaging predators to pursue all avarice & vice, to sin without repentance or contrition since, by the
liberating revelation of Luther, it was now known that which was previously hidden ... not only was man unable to resist sin, he was not even required to since the |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 12 2003 : 5:51:44 PM
|
"We're not in the realm of opinion here."
I would say we are in the realm of opinion here. The differences between us are a matter of differing opinions on what the Scriptures (facts) actually say. In the end we can never prove anything to each other, because I interpret the Scriptures differently than you and the Roman Catholic Church interprets the Scriptures. And we are convinced of our interpretations, or our opinions. Or should I resort to saying I have all the facts right, and you don't? It's still a matter of opinion.
"Do you 'test everything' & 'work out your salvation in fear & trembling'?"
I try to test everthing against the Scriptures, as the Bereans did. I hold no allegiance with Calvin, Hus, Zwingli, Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon, Moody, Billy Graham, any Reformed Pastor(I actually don't know any Reformed Pastors), or any man. Only with God and His Word.
"It is HIS bible, with all HIS spurious editing (you know -the adding to & taking away that has been condemned) that forms the Protestant framework - it is Luther's Canon of Scripture over & above the Canon of Sacred Scripture preserved & venerated by the Catholic Church. If I am wrong produce for me a Protestant bible that contains Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees - show me the seven purged chapters of the Book of Esther, the 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel known as ‘the Song of the Three Children’ ... all were there, in their sacred places until the 16th century crude man impugned them, saying, "Throw it overboard!" Much attention is paid to Luther then, with very little effort. And, while you might know of his excessive embarrassing blights, I don't think the average
Protestant (or Catholic) does. Please don't explain away Luther's impact. As unhappy a prospect it may be, he's inseparable from Protestant origins, thought, & development - especially in regards to sola scriptura."
The Protestant Bible is partly based on the Scriptures of the Judean Jews. These Jews did not give Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees canonical status. The books of the OT Apochrypha were later included in the Septuagint, a product of Hellenistic culture, used by Greek speaking/reading Jews outside of Judea. Excluding the OT Apochrypha was a movement by Protestants to try to get back to the Scriptures Jesus knew in Galilee and Judea, (since He never mentioned these books when he said "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."), and exclude the unnecessary excess baggage that is the Apochrypha, which also does not meet the rules of canonicity.
"Of course not, there IS no ultimate definition, nor is there unity within Protestantism. It fell to sectarian divisions immediately & it continues unto this day."
There is no ultimate definition of Roman Catholicism either. I've had long conversations with Catholics about what defines a Catholic, and none can agree. Some say it's going to Mass, some say it's believing
the doctrines, etc. There are many unifying factors among Protestants, but we also do not try to pretend we have complete unity, as some Roman Catholics pretend. I have never met two Catholics who have
completely agreed on everything about Roman Catholicism. I know several Catholics who have strong theological disagreements with the catechism. I know some who don't believe the Church and Pope are
infallible, and some who do. Some beleive the Scriptures are authoritative and some don't. Some abide by Vatican II, and some don't. There are many sects among Roman Catholicism. As a Roman
Catholic/Jesuit I know often says, "There's room for everyone, with all their differing opinions within Catholicism." My response is, why ally or identify yourself with beliefs you strongly disagree with? Why
the pre |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 12 2003 : 7:26:18 PM
|
| That quote from 2Tim 3:15 has nothing to do with scripture only.What scripture existed when Timothy was a child? It was the O.T. The N.T. wasn't even around.He refers,then, to the Scriptures of the O.T.,and if the argument from this passage proved anything,it would prove too much,viz.,that the Scriptures of the N.T.were not necessary for a rule of faith. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 12 2003 : 7:37:54 PM
|
| Folks like to cite Acts17:11,which refers to the Bereans,who"welcomed the word with all eagerness,and examined the scriptures,day after day,to find out whether all this was true".What really happened is that these people first had been taught Christianity orally and now checked to see if its claims matched the O.T.prophecies.The verse does not at all mean one uses the Bible as a checklist for all Christian doctrines.If it means that,there would be,again,the problem Newman brought up,that the O.T.alone would be sufficient as a rule of faith,the N.T. unnecessary. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 12 2003 : 8:33:24 PM
|
CT, I just want to say that I appreciate your thoughts & perspectives regarding all of this. I also hope that I'm not reading (as in how my posts are sounding to others) too far afield from what I'm thinking. I do want to, at this juncture, stay focused on the Scriptures because I don't think issues surrounding Scripture have yet been clarified.
One quick comment;
"Christ never promised unity to Christians. These people are all part of the Catholic Church, the definition of a Church is a body of believers. The Church is not some inanimate object seperate from the people as you seem to imply in your arguement against the corruption of Church leaders having any effect on the Church."
There's a couple of areas where I think you've misunderstood my arguments. In the above, I don't hold the view that corruption had no effect upon the Church or that the Church is an inanimate object. Quite the contrary, the Church is a LIVING Body of believers - exactly how you've stated it. Corruption caused scandal & brought forth great reformers (uhmm ... Catholic, that is). My point is that corruption has not effected the Church doctrinally - it made no impact upon her teachings - that is so. And that, very simply, is due to her divinity - the indwelling I previously mentioned. Men come, men go ... Also, regarding unity, it is a divine precept. Christ commanded Christian unity. Yes, there's room for all, but not on everyone's own particular terms or quirks. It isn't the Big Tent & it isn't a cafeteria.
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 12 2003 : 9:31:32 PM
|
| One side of me comes out of Schoharie County and all my kin-folk up that way were Presbyterians,Dutch Reformed,Lutheran and the Church of England.Now I am a crazy papist.Didn't come easy.Oh yeah,can't forget the French Hugeys from way way back. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Many Flags
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 13 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 12 2003 : 10:24:59 PM
|
| A few thoughts here, I'm not going to quote long sections of scripture, etc. However, Luther never wanted to begin a whole new congregation of believers. He only wanted to reform the Catholic church. So, in my beliefs, although there are some sacramental differences, etc....I have no problems with "papists", or for that matter Episcopalians, Methodists, i.e. organized churches which base their beliefs on the doctrines of the church (Catholic Church?? group of believers??). I DO have problems with all the sects, fundamentalists, holier-than-thous, etc. They do harm to what (I believe) God expects of us. I believe a great sin is the belief of fundamentalists that their way is the only way (the Pharisee beating himself on the breast and praying, "I'm glad I'm not like others!"). Now, here is an interesting thought. I've always believed there was a lot to the story of the Tower of Babel. Does God really want us all to believe the same, worship the same, etc., etc....except for the fundamental (hmmm, bad choice of word) doctrines. Will Budhists and Jews go to hell? I have a good friend, a teacher of mine who is Jewish. My daughter once asked if he would go to heaven because he does not believe the Christ was the Messiah. My answer....when I get to heaven, I sure hope Mike is there...it wouldn''t be the same without him. Another quick thought.....God has to have a sense of humor and watch us make fools of ourselves, and enjoy that. He created us, he has to enjoy some of the silly things we do in our human endeavors. Ok, enough rambling. DUM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 13 2003 : 2:57:35 PM
|
Interesting discourse. Mind boggling (or perhaps, mind numbing) for this poor soul to keep up with the learned arguments and evidences presented by both sides. I am but a simple man. I think, above all else, Jesus meant for his ministry to BE simple in concept and understanding. My thoughts are that Jesus was a true spiritual revolutionary - he was a Jew, well versed in the convoluted laws and doctrine of Talmudic scholarship, but his whole ministry concerned itself with reducing all that to the basic essentials ALL men could understand and relate to - without a "by your leave" from the Priests and Sadducees - he stripped away the non-essential and preached that God's love was there for ALL of us, freely given, for the asking. That "through Him" (Jesus's example - His being one of the people and talking directly TO the people without prejudice or formality but with divine Love) we could be saved. HE is the path to salvation (his method/example). His ministry through his selected twelve was to continue that message in that way - or so I believe. Two thousand years later, that message has been again been lost and obfuscated with as much accretion of dogma, do's and don'ts, heirarchy, nit picking, and intermediaries as Jesus rebelled against when confronting the Temple in Jerusalem. So I believe - a simple man who cannot follow or understand the learned words of those here.
It was those like ME Jesus was talking to. His message was simple so that those like me could understand it immediately within my heart.
Peter was a simple, faithful, flawed man. I think THAT is why he chose Peter as the one upon whom he meant his church to be built. He saw in Peter a childlike trust and love and faith in Him. Even though he was flawed and coarse and often belligerent. He loved Peter for that, and I think that is why he chose him. NOT to establish a successive line of regal Popes above us to serve as judges and intermediaries. Jesus went down amongst the people. He preached a personal, loving God and by his example as the Son of God eating, sleeping, walking and BEING one with the humblest he was sending a message. God is there for us, ALL of us, with no qualifications or rules - we merely have to believe in Him, and his Son, and follow his Son's example and teachings. But that's just me. My belief. I AM a simple man and a simple mind.
Enjoyed taxing my brain trying to understand things said here. Beyond me though. And I surely don't speak to what is in my mind and heart as well as the rest of you. Nor am I as learned or intelligent, nor do I have the way with words you guys do.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 13 2003 : 4:55:57 PM
|
Mind now, folks, I am NOT taking a position! I am merely telling you what I believe myself! Nothing more. Not saying it's right, nor that it's THE way to believe, nor that Protestants or Catholics have it wrong, or any such thing a'tall. I HAVE enjoyed (within my limited ability and the capacity of my tiny brain) the discussion.
How-somever, am NOT taking a position. A good question was asked though........do Jews go to heaven? Like the man who posed the question, I sure hope so! I also have a good friend from way back who is Jewish and he is the nicest guy ever. I sure HOPE to see him there, assuming I manage to wheedle my way into heaven. There is some doubt about THAT! :) |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 17 2003 : 04:14:27 AM
|
Would liked to have rejoined this earlier but ran into a Great Chicken Crossing Event. The road was jammed. Waiting. I thought I'd die. In the rain. Drove over the chicken but I could not stop for death. Sorry. I'm late.
________________________________________
There are questions raised now that have broadened the discussion. I'll give it a go & try to comment on some thoughts (not as thoroughly as Adele would have me do it, though).
First, does God want us to believe and worship the same way? Yes, absolutely, He does. So much so that He gave man Revelation (first through the prophets of Israel) to guide him so he could know God, not just know of God through reasoning. He gave man Himself (in the second person of the Trinity, the Son) so he could know His doctrines & revealed mysteries of salvation, so God could atone for sin and redeem what was otherwise lost - mankind. He gave man His Kingdom on earth, the Divine Institution (the Church, the means by which He guides & in which He promised to continue His Redemptive work & His teachings "unto the consummation of the world") so men of all ages & all places could hear the 'Good News' - the Gospel of salvation. God as man. God among us. God as sufferer. God crucified. That's an incredible, incredible thing to ponder - Divine love so perfect and unbound that God Himself would become flesh for our sake. Christ preached a very, very certain, very, very specific Gospel. He wasn't merely a teacher. Not merely a prophet. He is God. He never said He is A way to salvation, He said He is THE way and He gave to us the means in which we can freely choose to follow Him unto eternity. He, God, humbled Himself and placed Himself at the mercy of man so He Himself could offer man mercy. His gospel is our Light. His suffering & death is our salvation. His Resurrection is our life. An extremely radical series of actions for God to take if it were all merely to present an 'option' for salvation, isn't it? If Christ's Gospel, Death, & Resurrection is not our everything, then He died for nothing & Christianity is the work of human hands. Christianity is the most profound, complex, paradoxical 'philosophy or concept' ever known or ever imagined.
Now, the question is 'can one obtain salvation who does not follow Christ?' The short answer is yes ... but. God alone can search the heart, mind, & soul of every man and judge with perfect knowledge the intent and extent of his knowledge of Truth. One who has not heard the Gospel is obviously not bound to the Gospel, but he is bound to God authored natural laws & intent of goodness (Baptism by desire) - his must be a life of virtues, of love, of good works. One who knows the Gospels & professes Christ is more accountable in his words, thoughts, & deeds since he has the benefit of God's revelation & the teachings of God's doctrines, including the sacramentals that are meant to aid man's assent. Professing Christ in words alone is not enough. The life of a Christian must reflect his Christian profession of faith, however often or severely he may falter, since he knows the price of his salvation, has been shown the way to obtain it, & claims to believe it. One who hears the Gospel and yet rejects it ... that is a hard place to be. But even then, it begs the question; 'How rightly has he heard the Gospel?' It is a sad truth that Christianity has not always been preached as it should be preached. It has at times been preached with a harshness or cruelty (or corruption) that virtually ensured the message would remain hidden and unknown. These are the things for God to discern. Thank God God is more merciful than are we. Still, the bottom line is that salvation is a very difficult prospect without the Gospel. With God literally pouring Himself out for our sakes, it is less difficult.
Regarding Jews specifically; the chosen people were chosen for the benefit of all people. Chosen to be the people of t |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 17 2003 : 12:58:31 PM
|
Thanks Lainey. Well said. I must say, if YOU are HOME schooling, then your children are surely getting a finer all around education than they could get at any public school, and many private schools.
Have you ever thought of being a teacher? Formally?
It wasn't rules and dogma so much that I was talking about, as it was the strictures of the Temple Jesus rebelled against. On the one hand, he loved his faith, on the other hand, he rebelled against all the accretions the Temple had devised to enthrall God's children to the power of the Temple and Priests rather than to the power of God.
His tantrum with the money changers clearly indicates that He was incensed with how all the "rules" and Priestly contrivances to install themselves in such a way that THEY had the power of salvation and as intermediaries (and the ONLY intermediaries) between man and God. So I think. He was trying to get it back to the basics and back to a one on one relationship between man and God. He was, clearly in the courtyard when smiting the money changers, stating what men had instituted to promote their own power and position was fogging the essential message - God does not WANT sacrifices and adherence to such rote worship - he wants our HEARTS. That if we take God (and Jesus) INTO our hearts fully and freely, we will know what he wants of us. We will know what to do, what is right and wrong, and when we have failed - as we must - being human. We will also know that if we recognize our failings and repent truly and fully and ask his forgivenes, we WILL be forgiven. We are forgiven for the asking, not necessarily because we asked forgiveness THROUGH a certain "empowered" individual, or using a specific set of words, or in a dogmatically formal way.
However, I also see that because we ARE human and ARE fallible it can't be left always just up to US to decide what God wants of us.
Everybody reads a passage differently. Everybody has their own view.
The ultimate destination of that would be to have as many sects of Christianity as there are Christians. Chaos. On the other hand, I don't believe Jesus intended his message to become another "Temple and Priests" situation wherein his message becomes lost in ritual, dictates, pronouncements by fallible man given the force of Divine Law and the word of God, a reliance on rote formulas so deeply that the reason and meaning behind them are lost and the formula itself is perceived as having the power.
It is a very complex subject. Way beyond my understanding. That's why I need to keep it simple for myself. God exists in everything. God loves me. God sent his Son to show me the way to His kingdom, and to take upon himself the sins of man, as man, and through his resurrection show us how WE may be resurrected spiritually. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. If I take him into my heart without reservation and without qualification, he cares not if I pray alone or with many, he cares not if I pray by formula but would rather I pray from the heart, he cares not if I confess my sins to a Priest, as long as I recognize them, confess them to myself and to him, and "go and sin no more" which is, by nature and virtue of being human, nearly impossible to fulfill. It is in the heartfelt attempt to do HIS work and HIS will that he judges us though.
Amongst the men who KNEW him best, who were his chosen, even THEY did not agree universally about what the message was, how to tell it, how to establish the Church, nor what the Church should instruct or how it should be constructed. Not completely. If God WANTED one way of looking at things, WHY would he choose 12 different men with 12 different paradigms to do that work? Why not just choose ONE man? ONE message giver? Perhaps, in choosing them all and sending them all out to different lands and different peoples, he knew the whole true message would be composed of it's parts? I can't say.
So it HAS to come down to the basics. I don't bel |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 17 2003 : 1:15:46 PM
|
I'll try to put what I am saying in the most simple and real terms.
My mother died unexpectedly. She loved God all her life. She believed deeply in God, her church, and Jesus. She was NO Saint, but she had God and Jesus firmly in her heart. Every morning she would pray with the hospital chaplain. She is in heaven now. I not only believe that, I KNOW that. She did not receive absolution. She was not Catholic. Does that mean she is NOT in heaven, but in purgatory or some such? Impossible. God does NOT close His gates to his children who carry Him in their hearts simply because they did not perform a certain ritual. He judges us by our hearts, not by whether we say Hail Mary's or Allah Akbar or which "Our Father" we say. That I do not believe. Through love of God and acceptance of Jesus I will see her there, and prove my point. Someday, God willing. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - July 17 2003 : 1:18:57 PM
|
| Bill, that was absolutely beautifully said!! Both of the above posts. Bravo! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.5 seconds |
 |
|
The Decline of Controversy ... Part 1
