tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5863160256941769023..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther Was counseled by the Devil to Stop Celebrating Holy Mass?James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-48471323553919060542020-06-23T12:56:31.076-04:002020-06-23T12:56:31.076-04:00Simplicio said...
Wow, that was a unique piece of...<i>Simplicio said...</i><br /><br />Wow, that was a unique piece of creative writing. Next. <br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54975347001567044082020-06-21T16:47:55.219-04:002020-06-21T16:47:55.219-04:00Except it is not necessary for Luther to test the ...Except it is not necessary for Luther to test the Papacy with such a configuration. There has never before been a saint who used the arguments of god to test christ. And otherwise to claim that Luther is the only saint is nothing short of defying him who was a pervert and a drunkard.<br /><br />Secondly, there is this assumption that god, in establishing the Papal line, made a fundamental mistake that contradicts his omnipotence.<br /><br />That is, Luther, knowing more than god, knew that he must create a reformation to return to the proper worship of God. But this all presupposes that God did not actually establish the church in such a manner from the beginning. Which if God is omnipotent and we are ultimately lacking in free will, means that it is *inevitable* by his own reasoning, that the Papacy is right and cannot be contradicted. After all, god in his omnipotence cannot make a mistake. <br /><br />This means that Luther, by his own reasoning on the nature of free will was wrong in his rebellion.<br /><br />Secondly, even if we prove Luther wrong. Does that mean that free will of man means we *can* destroy the church and therefore drive it away from god, necessitating a reformation?<br /><br />While the answer is a technical yes but actually no. The reality is that unless you are willing to call god himself a liar, it is not true. God said Mat 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."<br /><br />Since God in his perfection has no need to lie because he has nothing more he could possibly gain by doing so, and with perfect power, he could simply make it the truth such that he could only ever speak the truth. That is, god *cannot* lie.<br /><br />Meaning, again, luther was wrong, and guided by satan to go against the church with the reformation.<br /><br />This means more or less that his arguments which are put through the voice of the devil, are more than likely the devil. The major part of why is that the words he uses are not filled with light, holiness, peace or goodness. All of which are the spiritual fruits of gods presence and holy word. But rather, are filled with agitations, doubts, skepticism towards the sensitivity, love and relationship that god would form with the soul whom does his commandments. In essence, a doubt to gods promise.<br /><br />To claim this is some magical roundabout 4D chess move against the church is utterly absurd and far beyond Luthers abilities. More than likely after discovering that he was being scandalized he came up with a rationalization after the fact.<br /><br />after all and I quote "what is wrong with saying a lusty lie for the sake of a righteous cause for the church". <br />Simpliciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17829341030231691535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67849060557587737322020-01-17T10:21:32.917-05:002020-01-17T10:21:32.917-05:00Diligent work, and thus once again a RC charge is...Diligent work, and thus once again a RC charge is spurious. And if it was the devil then while he sought to destroy Luther with guilt, yet failing that, he most likely would want Luther to offer the magic Catholic mass, since by that sin-offering of a false Christ multitudes are deceived and comforted. <br /><br />Supposing that (if they even understand it) at the words of consecration by (only)a validly ordained Catholic priest (only) unleavened (only) wheat bread and (only)fermented wine (only) from the juice of grapes cease to exist having become the "true body" and blood of Christ, "being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical 'reality'” in each and every particle down to the smallest visible (emphasis on visible) one. Consequently,eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally” though via "a supernatural mode of existence."<br /><br />Which is offered as a sacrifice "in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead, which "sacrifice is truly propitiatory." And which is to be consumed by the adherent as the "medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ."<br /><br />Until that is, the non-existent bread and wine, respectively, manifests (emphasis on visibility) decay/corruption, at which point the Eucharistic christ also ceases to exist under that form,<br /><br />Yet this is called the "literal" understanding of "take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you," blood "shed for you," which literally would mean that what was consumed would be the manifestly physically incarnated Christ that was crucified, shedding His sinless blood. <br /><br />And which manifest physicality Scripture emphasizes (1 Jn. 1:1-3; 5:6) in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He materially was. As is the case with the Eucharistic Catholic contrived christ.<br /><br />Sources and more <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord%27s_Supper.html#Table" rel="nofollow">http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord%27s_Supper.html </a>, by the grace of God.<br /><br />Another factor that your post relates to is that of the proper intent being required for a sacrament to be valid. For while that is to be assumed unless there is "serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does," (PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM), yet what constitutes serious ground is subject to interpretation. Many reject Francis as even being Catholic. <br /><br /> <br />PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.com