tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8567695485595238831..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther: the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sinJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85645693685444383442019-12-03T18:07:52.619-05:002019-12-03T18:07:52.619-05:00I ran across this post while looking for the text ...I ran across this post while looking for the text of Luther's sermon.<br /><br />The key is knowing the Greek "Kecharitomene" - past participle- "having been graced".<br />In other words, Mary needed a savior, this is true, but the grace was given to her at her conception. When the angel greeted her, she had already received the grace. In other words, we believe that she did need a savior but that the grace was preapplied. And you can know this by looking at the past participle.<br /><br />Hope this helps.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Carole Ann (Roman Catholic)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12499929355147167181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61448375181502075952010-11-22T14:26:24.593-05:002010-11-22T14:26:24.593-05:00Zipper,
Ben, the problem here is that you're...Zipper, <br /><br /><i>Ben, the problem here is that you're saying is that your interpretation of Roman Catholicism is okay with people going to Heaven outside of "the Church" even the Trent eternally condemned anyone who didn't perform the sacraments. It appears Vat II forgot that as well.</i><br /><br />Not my interpretation, Zip; Trent did in fact allow for “baptism of desire.” <br /><br />From the <i>Decree on Justification,</i> Chapter IV:<br /> <br />“By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, <b>OR THE DESIRE THEREOF,</b> as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” <a href="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br /><i>Salvation is through Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Heb 5:9).</i><br /><br />Yes, “He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that <i>OBEY</i> him” Heb 5:9<br /><br />Do you <i>obey</i> him when you refuse to “listen to the Church”? For “if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matt. 18:17<br /><br /><i>Ben thanks for the interesting discussion. It's been a good experience.</i><br /><br />That it has been my friend, though I see y’all still have a ways to go! ;)<br /><br /><br />Turretinfan,<br /><br /><i>We would not make the baptism of Mark a dogma.</i><br /><br />But it has been unquestioningly believed by the whole Church from the beginning! So now let us say the Church were to make it an <i>explicitly defined</i> dogma, what then would be your objection? <br /><br /><i>And the Roman lies that the Marian dogmas are something that were handed down from the apostles get crushed every time this issue comes up.</i><br /><br />I don’t have time at the moment to go dig through all my notes on this (I really need to keep them handy). In any event TF, you’re just plain mistaken here. Belief in the IM in one form or another is found in the Scriptures, in the Fathers and Doctors, and in the Church’s early liturgies. Perhaps James can be encouraged to set up an open forum here so that these kinds of silly comments can be taken there and addressed. <br /><br /><i>The website you linked regarding Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception confirms that Aquinas did not accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.</i><br /><br />It’s a little more complicate than that. Suffice it that Aquinas accepted Mary’s sinlessness (which is what Protestants really object to), and never rejected the IM, nor did he have a childish fit and leave the unity of the Church over various understanding of the matter. He understood that which I pointed out to Zip earlier, viz, that certain questions had not been fully worked out by <i>the Church.</i> The precise understanding and formulation of the IM was among these. <br /><br /><i>As for Augustine, he didn't venerate Mary the way that you do, nor did he indicate that the kind of veneration of her that you offer (such as by making and bowing down to statues of her, saying prayers to her, and so forth) is acceptable.</i><br /><br />Augustine most certainly venerated the Virgin, and he celebrated the feasts of many saints and martyrs. He also spoke of their intercession on behalf of the living! Very Catholic! ;)<br /><br /><i>Both Adam and Eve were created without original sin, but Mary was not created from clay like Adam or from the rib of an innocent man, like Eve. Instead, Mary was conceived by her human father, and received from him the stain of original sin.</i><br /><br />TF, let me ask you this: <br /><br />a. Do believe that God <i>could have</i> easily preserved the Virgin free from original sin, in virtue of the anticipated merits of his Son?<br /><br />b. Will you at least agree that the Fathers held to Mary's sinlessness, held that she was immaculate?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7103139102593182522010-11-22T09:08:44.876-05:002010-11-22T09:08:44.876-05:00"Not everything is in Scripture. Where do we ..."Not everything is in Scripture. Where do we find a record of, say, St. Mark ever having been baptized?"<br /><br />We would not make the baptism of Mark a dogma.<br /><br />"What the Church Fathers believe regarding Mary has been dealt with countless times in countless places. This issue is too involved to go into again here (and we’re already off course)."<br /><br />And the Roman lies that the Marian dogmas are something that were handed down from the apostles get crushed every time this issue comes up.<br /><br />The website you linked regarding Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception confirms that Aquinas did not accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.<br /><br />As for Augustine, he didn't venerate Mary the way that you do, nor did he indicate that the kind of veneration of her that you offer (such as by making and bowing down to statues of her, saying prayers to her, and so forth) is acceptable.<br /><br />Both Adam and Eve were created without original sin, but Mary was not created from clay like Adam or from the rib of an innocent man, like Eve. Instead, Mary was conceived by her human father, and received from him the stain of original sin.<br /><br />- TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-77560167944284440372010-11-21T23:53:27.947-05:002010-11-21T23:53:27.947-05:00Ben, the problem here is that you're saying is...Ben, the problem here is that you're saying is that your interpretation of Roman Catholicism is okay with people going to Heaven outside of "the Church" even the Trent eternally condemned anyone who didn't perform the sacraments. It appears Vat II forgot that as well.<br /><br /><i> it is Protestantism which, in theory at least, teaches that each is to follow his own way in religion. </i><br /><br />Do you debate Protestants much at all? Is it no wonder that we could care less about strawman arguments like this? Salvation is through Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Heb 5:9).<br /><br />Ben thanks for the interesting discussion. It's been a good experience.zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64218635660816541172010-11-21T22:56:30.421-05:002010-11-21T22:56:30.421-05:00Continued..
As far as the Protestant reasoning f...Continued.. <br /><br /><i>As far as the Protestant reasoning for opposing Marian doctrines, isn't it fair to say that they oppose these doctrines because they are found no where in the Scriptures</i><br /><br />Not everything is in Scripture. Where do we find a record of, say, St. Mark ever having been baptized? <br /><br /><i>nor are they found in the ECF's writings</i> <br /><br />Suffice it to say I disagree. What the Church Fathers believe regarding Mary has been dealt with countless times in countless places. This issue is too involved to go into again here (and we’re already off course).<br /><br /><i>and the closer to the present time there were so many different opinions on the subjects that no one knew what to believe.</i><br /><br />Until a matter is fully and authoritatively settled by the Church, theologians are free to speculate debate and discuss. This is natural part of how the Church makes progress in coming to a fuller understanding and appreciation of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Certain questions can take a very long time to fully resolve. <br /><br /><i>Even Aquinas didn't believe in a Marian IC.</i><br /><br />May I suggest you read <a href="http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q052.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a><br /><br /><i>Also isn't it quite obvious that Protestant worship is directed solely on Christ and that by making claims that Mary also had an IC and also had an ascension and also is a redeemer, stretches things so far that now attention is given to not only Christ, but Mary as well? Protestants don't want another Christ or hundreds of other Christs. They only want to praise the Rock, our only Savior and Redeemer.</i><br /><br />St. Augustine:<br /><br />“What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call <i>latria,</i> and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give <i>only to God.</i> To this worship belongs the <i>offering of sacrifices;</i> as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution.” <br /><br /><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140620.htm" rel="nofollow"> Contra Faustum, Book XX, 21</a><br /><br />Here are some NT Greek words for worship worth noting: <a href="http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2999" rel="nofollow"> Latreia</a> <a href="http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4352" rel="nofollow"> Proskuneo</a> <a href="http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1391" rel="nofollow">Doxa</a><br /><br />And Zip, here are a few more things to consider:<br /><br />a. Adam was created without original sin i.e., immaculate. <br /><br />b. The Blessed Virgin did not <i>ascend</i> into heaven under her own power as Christ did, rather she was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary" rel="nofollow">assumed</a> by Christ’s power. <br /><br />c. Scripture itself often speaks similarly of God and his saints, for example: <br /><br />Christ “was taken up in glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16:<br /><br /> “You guide me with your counsel, and afterward <i>you will take me into glory.</i>” Psalm 73:24<br /><br />d. Just as there is a sense in which God as well as man can be blasphemed, so to, there is a sense in which both can be “worshiped.” <br /><br />“But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have <i>worship</i>in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” Luke 14:10 KJV<br /><br /><br /><i>In fact, it is the Roman system that uses the Marian doctrines against Protestants. This is because if you can believe these doctrines even though there is no Scriptural, historical, or reasonable evidence for these claims then you will follow the pope wherever he leads. The RCC uses these doctrines to control people.</i><br /><br />My friend, you’re just being ridiculous here! Who’s being controlled? How??<br /><br />Peace.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34067807572561935682010-11-21T22:45:53.101-05:002010-11-21T22:45:53.101-05:00TurretinFan,
Thanks for sharing.
Always happy to...TurretinFan,<br /><br /><i>Thanks for sharing.</i><br /><br />Always happy to. ;)<br /><br />James,<br /><br /><i>Limited viewing is for people who don't really care.</i><br /><br />Unglaublish! <br /><br /><i>Good for you, Ben, you've come a long way.</i><br /><br />So ya see, James, there’s hope for everyone! ;)<br /><br />Zipper, <br /><br /><i>why do Roman Catholc apologists take so much pride in an "unbroken chain" of popes when they can't even define what this "unbroken chain" means? There's no point in saying that if time doesn't matter.</i><br /><br />I don’t know what you mean by “pride”?<br /><br />Now perhaps you’ll find these comments of Bishop Sheen helpful. Just read the entries for August 1st and 2nd <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=gEuakFdoPnUC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=%22Another+instance+of+how+our+Lord+associated+Peter+with+himself+%22&source=bl&ots=hv4yXhf20M&sig=Sg25Yzt2DDrh-lib98d_tv8ddXw&hl=en&ei=5vwfTPXGLOm1nAei27XnAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Another%20instance%20of%20how%20our%20Lord%20associated%20Peter%20with%20himself%20%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br /><i>Instead this is an example of an endless genealogy that we should not worry about. The Scriptures tell us to stay away from things like this because they do exalt God with them, only themselves(1 Tim 1:3-5; Luke 20:46-47).</i><br /><br />I think you are very much misapplying those passages. <br /><br /><i>As far as the RCC not being able to make up it's mind about matters of faith and morals, one example would be the issue of who is going to Heaven. Before Vatican II it was only those who submitted themselves to the pope.</i><br /><br />Zipper, does not Scripture teaches us to submit to those in authority over us? <br /><br />“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, <b>JUST AS YOU WOULD OBEY CHRIST.</b> Eph. 6:5<br /><br />Now how much more ought we to obey our spiritual leaders such as the bishops, who command with authority? Or were the early Christians free to disobey their bishops? Would such disobedience be consistent with one being “saved”?<br /><br /><i>Now the RCC teaches that anyone who follows their own personal religion, will go to Heaven. </i><br /><br />On the contrary, it is <i>Protestantism</i> which, in theory at least, teaches that each is to follow his own way in religion. <br /><br /><i>Quite the 360 that the RCC did.</i> <br /><br />I think you meant a 180, which would indicant a reversal. A 360 would have one going again in the same direction! ;) But no, the Catholic Church has not changed its position. The Church still teaches there is no salvation outside the Church. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus#Protestant_interpretation_of_the_dogma" rel="nofollow"> Even the Reformers taught this! </a><br /><br />Still, the Church does recognize that God’s grace is not limited solely to the sacraments and the visible Church.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26737694473081323582010-11-20T21:31:00.083-05:002010-11-20T21:31:00.083-05:00I've added more of the sermon context to this ...I've added more of the sermon context to this blog entry, based on a translation by Matthew Carver. I'm grateful to Matthew for taking the time to do this work. <br /><br />He also informed me of a book of Luther's sermons I didn't have, which may very well contain the same sermon. I've ordered it, and look forward to working through that translation as well.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86325380790714597422010-11-20T15:06:00.536-05:002010-11-20T15:06:00.536-05:00This comment has nothing to do with Ben's insi...This comment has nothing to do with Ben's insights.<br /><br />Through <a href="http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">the help of Brigitte</a> I was put in touch with a person who translated Luther's sermon, <em>Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes</em> (On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God).<br /><br />I now have the entire sermon in English (and I was also made aware of another partial translation on-line). <br /><br />Nothing in this blog post needs to be revised, but I'd like to expand the entry a bit if I get permission to post sections of the translation.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59258111951109705312010-11-20T14:50:31.597-05:002010-11-20T14:50:31.597-05:00If that's the case Ben, then why do Roman Cath...If that's the case Ben, then why do Roman Catholc apologists take so much pride in an "unbroken chain" of popes when they can't even define what this "unbroken chain" means? There's no point in saying that if time doesn't matter.<br /><br />Instead this is an example of an endless genealogy that we should not worry about. The Scriptures tell us to stay away from things like this because they do exalt God with them, only themselves(1 Tim 1:3-5; Luke 20:46-47).<br /><br />As far as the RCC not being able to make up it's mind about matters of faith and morals, one example would be the issue of who is going to Heaven. Before Vatican II it was only those who submitted themselves to the pope. Now the RCC teaches that anyone who follows their own personal religion, will go to Heaven. Quite the 360 that the RCC did. The problem is, we can't all be right.<br /><br />As far as the Protestant reasoning for opposing Marian doctrines, isn't it fair to say that they oppose these doctrines because they are found no where in the Scriptures, nor are they found in the ECF's writings and the closer to the present time there were so many different opinions on the subjects that no one knew what to believe. Even Aquinas didn't believe in a Marian IC. Also isn't it quite obvious that Protestant worship is directed solely on Christ and that by making claims that Mary also had an IC and also had an ascension and also is a redeemer, stretches things so far that now attention is given to not only Christ, but Mary as well? Protestants don't want another Christ or hundreds of other Christs. They only want to praise the Rock, our only Savior and Redeemer.<br /><br />In fact, it is the Roman system that uses the Marian doctrines against Protestants. This is because if you can believe these doctrines even though there is no Scriptural, historical, or reasonable evidence for these claims then you will follow the pope wherever he leads. The RCC uses these doctrines to control people.zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-12436013839277944422010-11-20T13:14:09.272-05:002010-11-20T13:14:09.272-05:00What we need now is some limited viewing of the bo...<i>What we need now is some limited viewing of the book. As you can see, currently there is none .</i><br /><br />Limited viewing is for people who don't really care. If you are so concerned with scholarship and truth, you'll simply have to get the book. You can get on the CPH subscription list, and each new volume will be sent to you. <br /><br /><i>But that Denifle was not perfect, nor his scholarship impervious to mistakes, I freely grant. But this true of everyone – Grisar, Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, Augustine, you name'em.</i><br /><br />Good for you, Ben, you've come a long way. <br /><br /><i>I just think fundamentally the Protestant opposition to Marian teachings such as the IC stem from a deep-seated prejudice against the Roman Church and her authority, coupled with an appalling ignorance of what Scripture actually teaches about </i><br /><br />No, you're meandering around. Luther's Mariology is the topic here. <br /><br /><i>Could it not just be an honest mistake? Have you never erred? Or do you think it was a deliberate misleading? And speaking of misleading, what about Luther et al, who made all sorts of repeated, absurd and outrageous slanders against Catholics?</i><br /><br />The actual text from Grisar in which the quote was taken by one of your fellow Romanists is in this blog entry. If someone's reading compression is that poor, well...<br /><br /><i>Anyway, just hope that James doesn’t again take me to task for deleting a post! ;)</i><br /><br />Your posts went to blogger spam, so I reinstated them.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22496711729690915922010-11-20T10:21:14.177-05:002010-11-20T10:21:14.177-05:00Ben:
Thanks for sharing.
-TurretinFanBen:<br /><br />Thanks for sharing.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75135814181976929392010-11-20T02:20:12.334-05:002010-11-20T02:20:12.334-05:00TurretinFan
I wish you wouldn't insult our in...TurretinFan<br /><br /><i>I wish you wouldn't insult our intelligence with links to that blog.</i><br /><br />Bro, I wasn’t trying to <i>insult</i> the intelligences around here; I was merely trying to <i>illustrate</i> them! LOL<br /><br /><i>1) Yes, he had a divine mandate to oppose Rome's errors.</i><br /><br />Nope. (but how are <i>you</i> so <i>sure</i> of this?) <br /><br /><i> 2) His 95 theses were mostly about indulgences, and it was his criticism of the sale of indulgences (and similar simony) that earned him the hatred of the monks and bishops (he hit the monks in their bellies and the bishops in their purses).</i><br /><br />Really?<br /><br />And how many of this same dissolute crowd ended up following the ol' boy? And how many would eventually be seen, late at night, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=qI5CAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA375&dq=%22black+eagle+tavern%22+luther&hl=en&ei=l1nnTJ-oGsL68AayuoXoDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22black%20eagle%20tavern%22%20luther&f=false" rel="nofollow"> staggering out of their favorite haunt with their great hero</a> ? ;)<br /><br />Truth is, TF, Denifle rightly pointed out long ago to his Protestant critics this type of self-righteous hypocrisy:<br /><br />"Were they non-partisan, they would draw other conclusions and recognize that, with all the correctness of their material investigation, they were only condemning their Lutherdom as the full measure of thitherto existing wickedness: for, the blacker they paint the Papacy of the time of Luther, the blacker does the ‘Evangelical Reformation’ become." <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924029249567#page/n419/mode/2up/search/blacker" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br /><i>But a more mature Luther viewed the primary issue as justification by faith.</i> <br /><br />Nope.<br /><br /><i>We, looking back, might say that the primary issue was one of authority - whether Rome had the authority to bind the consciences of men beyond what Scripture teaches.</i><br /><br />Nope.<br /><br /><i>So, actually, your second question is a bit more complex.</i><br /><br />Nope. <br /><br />It's actually quite simple: <br /><br />The supremely important, all encompassing issue for Luther was the question of <i>Free Will</i>! That’s it! -- Free Will! <br /><br />Everything else in comparison with the great question of Free Will was “irrelevant,” as Luther himself freely admits at the conclusion of his major work, <i>The Bondage of the Will.</i> <br /><br />“In this, moreover, I give you [Erasmus] great praise, and proclaim it - you alone in pre-eminent distinction from all others, have entered upon the thing itself; that is, the <i>grand turning point</i> of the cause; and, have not wearied me with those <i>irrelevant points</i> about popery, purgatory, indulgences, and other like baubles, rather than causes, with which all have hitherto tried to hunt me down, - though in vain! <br /><br />"You, and you alone saw, what was the <i>grand hinge</i> upon which <i>the whole turned,</i> and therefore you attacked the <i>vital part</i> at once; for which, from my heart, I thank you.” <a href="http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bowconcl.htm" rel="nofollow">Source</a>.<br /><br />I do hope these words of Luther will help you to be more informed on the subject! ;)Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6491490533683789322010-11-20T01:49:27.051-05:002010-11-20T01:49:27.051-05:00Zip,
Let the Bible speak for itself, that's ...Zip,<br /><br /><i> Let the Bible speak for itself, that's all I have to say.</i><br /><br />But that’s the problem, Zip! The Bible <i>doesn’t</i> speak for itself. Otherwise there would be no disagreements as to what it is <i>saying</i>! <br /><br /><i> Would it not be a continuation if there wasn't a pope for an hour, a day, a week? What would make the line continuous, and how long is too long in between popes?</i><br /><br />Zip, succession is not a function of the amount of time between predecessors and successors. Look at the meaning of the word "succeeds"; it only means "to come next after another in office or position," from the Latin <i>succedere</i>, <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/succeeds?show=0&t=1290226552" rel="nofollow">to go up, follow after</a>. There's not mention of a time dimension. <br /> <br />Strictly speaking therefore, the current Pope, Benedict XVI, would still be considered successor to the apostles and to Pope St. Peter in particular, even were there not a single intervening Pope! <br /><br /><i>I take nothing on here personally, I just think that many Roman Catholics are blinded because they follow a church that resembles a two headed beast rather then following Jesus.</i><br /><br />The Catholic Church has only one Head – Jesus Christ. He is the <i>Invisible</i> Head. And why should having an invisible Head preclude having a <i>visible representative</i> of that Head, say, the bishop of Rome?<br /><br />No, my friend, the real monstrosity here is not Catholicism, but Protestantism! For while it claims a single Head, it nevertheless insists this very Head is somehow attached to hundreds - if not thousands - of disconnected bodies! Rather freakish, yes? <br /><br /><i>It's never salvation through Jesus Christ in the RCC. There, it's salvation through the eucharist and the RCC. Sad.</i><br /><br />But “Jesus Christ” is not just the Head alone, He is, as Augustine termed it, the “Whole Christ,” Head <i>and body.</i> And his body is the <i>one</i> Church. Now surely no one is saved by believing solely in the Head who knowingly and willfully rejects the body! For the <i>body</i> too is our hope and glory! <br /><br /><i>Ben, if this is the argument that the RCC has, then that church has nothing for me. It's a denomination that can't make up it's mind about matters of faith and morals, and it's a church that is intellectually dishonest.</i><br /><br />Where do you find the Church unable to “make up its mind about matters of faith and morals”??Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-45184625899678256712010-11-19T19:46:49.406-05:002010-11-19T19:46:49.406-05:00Hi Ben,
I would have to agree with Turretinfan th...Hi Ben,<br /><br />I would have to agree with Turretinfan that Luther was under a "divine mandate" and really wanted to help the church of his day. The answer to your second question is at first it was the sale of indulgences, but the deeper that Luther and others looked, the more dirt was found within the RCC.<br /><br />Also Ben, I really am curious about how you would define the "unbroken" chain of popes. How long between popes would it take to make the chain unbroken?zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-90838304547467655192010-11-19T17:10:37.600-05:002010-11-19T17:10:37.600-05:001) Yes, he had a divine mandate to oppose Rome'...1) Yes, he had a divine mandate to oppose Rome's errors.<br /><br />2) Assuming by "the Church" you mean Rome, the answer to that question is something seems to have evolved during Luther's life.<br /><br />His 95 theses were mostly about indulgences, and it was his criticism of the sale of indulgences (and similar simony) that earned him the hatred of the monks and bishops (he hit the monks in their bellies and the bishops in their purses).<br /><br />But a more mature Luther viewed the primary issue as justification by faith.<br /><br />We, looking back, might say that the primary issue was one of authority - whether Rome had the authority to bind the consciences of men beyond what Scripture teaches.<br /><br />So, actually, your second question is a bit more complex.<br /><br />I hope those answers help you to be more informed on the subject!<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40950147898703786262010-11-19T16:45:57.654-05:002010-11-19T16:45:57.654-05:00zipper and Turretinfan,
Let me ask you both just ...zipper and Turretinfan,<br /><br />Let me ask you both just two simple and straightforward questions: <br /><br />1. Did Luther have any sort of <i>divine mandate</i> to teach or reform, or was he acting solely in accordance with his own personal opinion's and authority?<br /><br />2. What was the main issue which lay at the heart of Luther's protest against the Church?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38354527830042795742010-11-19T11:28:22.462-05:002010-11-19T11:28:22.462-05:00So the links that Ben posted are to quotes where L...So the links that Ben posted are to quotes where Luther or Calvin demonstrated that they were correct? What I mean is did these quotes from Luther and Calvin say that they were "infallible" or did they say that they were correct? I'm sorry but I'm on an iPod so I have a difficult time navigating the Internet. If that's the case though, Ben wasted his time. <br /><br />Ben, if this is the argument that the RCC has, then that church has nothing for me. It's a denomination that can't make up it's mind about matters of faith and morals, and it's a church that is intellectually dishonest.<br /><br />Praise God we have Jesus though and not some endless geneology of popes that have been edited well over a hundred times.zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18721771239015800552010-11-19T09:48:58.396-05:002010-11-19T09:48:58.396-05:00Ben:
I wish you wouldn't insult our intellige...Ben:<br /><br />I wish you wouldn't insult our intelligence with links to that blog. That blog simply illustrates its author's inability to distinguish between Luther saying that he is right, and Luther saying that he is infallible. <br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-89815403776643800622010-11-19T00:24:40.133-05:002010-11-19T00:24:40.133-05:00Ben, I can't speak for Luther or Calvin but I ...Ben, I can't speak for Luther or Calvin but I can speak for myself. I make no claims to being infallible and it's completely irresponsible for people to make that claim. Let the Bible speak for itself, that's all I have to say.<br /><br />As far as a 2000 year continuation Ben, can you give me a definition of that? Would it not be a continuation if there wasn't a pope for an hour, a day, a week? What would make the line continuous, and how long is too long in between popes?<br /><br />I take nothing on here personally, I just think that many Roman Catholics are blinded because they follow a church that resembles a two headed beast rather then following Jesus. It's never salvation through Jesus Christ in the RCC. There, it's salvation through the eucharist and the RCC. Sad.<br /><br />My soul takes refuge only through Christ the Lord. He is our Chief Shepard.zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76304392403211018592010-11-18T21:51:19.597-05:002010-11-18T21:51:19.597-05:00I deleted one of my repeat postings (though perhap...I deleted one of my repeat postings (though perhaps I should’ve asked for a vote on which was the best version) LOL. Anyway, just hope that James doesn’t again take me to task for deleting a post! ;)<br /><br />Zipp,<br /><br /><i>I have an answer to your question: who tops Martin Luther For insults? It would have to be anyone who has held the title "pope".</i><br /><br />Dunno if I’d want to go there, Zipp; you’re likely to put a lot people’s noses out of joint! See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_Orthodox_Popes_of_Alexandria" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br /><i>Number one insult IMO of any pope belongs to Pius IX when he declared himself infallible in matters of faith and morals.</i><br /><br />Actually, it is every Protestant who proclaims himself infallible, and claims the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit! How else dare judge the faith and morals of others? Surely no one here will concede the Reformers could have possibly erred in what they taught was the "pure Gospel". It was their way or the highway. <br /><br />But make no mistake, Luther himself most certainly did make <a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/martin-luther-super-pope-and-de-facto.html" rel="nofollow"> claims to infallibility</a>! You think Jesus might have had a word or two for such hypocrisy?<br /><br />But now at least the Pope, the bishop of Rome, has an office, has Church Tradition, has 2000 years of continuous history back to the apostles. Further, his is not a private infallibility; it attends his office, which office is in union with all the Catholic bishops of the world. How unlike Protestantism, where each individual simply ‘springs from himself’ as it were, and declares whatever he wishes to be doctrine based on his private whims! In this system, every abomination, every sin, every blasphemy may be justified and defended simply by reciting the formula, “in the word”! <br /><br />It’ all quite absurd. <br /><br />But that’s been the nature and history of heresy. My suggestion to you, Zipp, is to go back and read about some of the heretics the Church Fathers had to struggle against. I would also encourage you to read <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=tDVaYvh4qj0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Norman+Cohn&hl=en&ei=BmrUTLuFGMqs8AaX3ei3DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow"> this book </a>. Then compare the ravings it contains to so many of the things Luther and Calvin said. I think you’ll very clearly perceive a continuum of madness running through all these pompous self-proclaimed preachers and “reformers.” <br /><br />But you’re right; all this is a bit off topic - but fun is fun, right? ;) <br /><br />Anyway folks, none of this is personal, so please don't take it that way.<br /><br />Peace.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14314256415374836012010-11-18T18:52:27.289-05:002010-11-18T18:52:27.289-05:00Hi Ben, I have an answer to your question: who top...Hi Ben, I have an answer to your question: who tops Martin Luther For insults? It would have to be anyone who has held the title "pope".<br /><br />Number one insult IMO of any pope belongs to Pius IX when he declared himself infallible in matters of faith and morals.<br /><br />But to be honest, non of this has much to do with the topic. Sorry.zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-4840616071640483052010-11-18T15:28:22.156-05:002010-11-18T15:28:22.156-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65168079699643443452010-11-18T14:50:44.521-05:002010-11-18T14:50:44.521-05:00If you'll read this post carefully (it is in E...<i>If you'll read this post carefully (it is in English), you'll notice that it was none other than Hartmann Grisar who made important historical comments on this particular Luther quote.</i><br /><br />So he did. <br /><br /><i>It was one of your fellow Romanists who read the same Grisar book, and ignored the fact that Luther deleted the very comment in question. What's wrong? Are you guys afraid of going deep into history?</i><br /><br />Could it not just be an honest mistake? Have you never erred? Or do you think it was a deliberate misleading? And speaking of misleading, what about Luther et al, who made all sorts of repeated, absurd and outrageous slanders against Catholics? Grisar <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/grisarsluther04grisuoft#page/n5/mode/2up/search/slander" rel="nofollow">documents many of these</a>. <br /><br />How about a little contempt for Luther and his slandering fellows? How about doing some posts on <i>that</i> topic? You've certainly got a ton of ready material to work with! If you need help with this, let me know. ;) <br /><br /><i>Here's a bonus question for you.</i><br /><br />Good. I ♥ bonus questions! ☺ ☺<br /><br /><i>In my post under "The Roman Catholic Runaround" can you identify the author of the quote in brown font that insulted me repeatedly, provided a bogus reference, and gave me instructions on how to use Google?</i><br /><br />I have my suspicions. ;) As for being “insulted,” I guess one <i>could</i> conceivably see it that way. But again, who tops M. Luther for insults? Who? Yet you are strangely silent when it comes to <i>them.</i> Missing a great opportunity here, James; shouldn’t pass it up! LOL<br /><br />Later my friend.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1036991908965198732010-11-18T14:40:50.477-05:002010-11-18T14:40:50.477-05:00I read many of their websites daily. None of them ...<i>I read many of their websites daily. None of them mentioned actually reading it. If you can produce a pop-RC apologist that's read volume 69, please do so. It appears, you'll be the first, given the researcher you are.</i> <br /><br />You know what, bro, I think you may actually be right here! <br /><br />What we need now is some limited viewing of the book. As you can see, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Luther%27s+Works%2C+Volume+69%22&btnG=Search+Books" rel="nofollow"> currently there is none </a>.<br /><br /><i>If you need instructions on how to order this book, let me know.</i><br /><br />Very thoughtful! ;)<br /><br /><i>Sure Grisar agreed with Denifle at times, but shame on you if you ignore those areas in which he did not.</i><br /><br />I don’t think I’m ignoring anything; I just haven’t <i>yet</i> found Grisar saying anything particularly bad about Denifle. I’ll look into it though, and will be sure to post here whatever negative comments I happen to find. But that Denifle was not perfect, nor his scholarship impervious to mistakes, I freely grant. But this true of everyone – Grisar, Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, Augustine, you name'em. <br /><br /><i>If "The Church" refers to Roman Catholicism, that church is heretical.</i><br /><br />Says who? Luther? Calvin? Give solid reasons why anyone should accept their opinions. You really ought to believe the <i>Scriptures,</i> not the screechers! <br /><br />Scripture <i>praises</i> the Roman Church (Rm 1:8), and tells us that this Church is honored by “all the churches of Christ” (Rm 16:16). Now <i>there</i> is being “in the word” James! - honoring the Roman Church!<br /><br />But Protestants will endure none of these testimonies of Scripture; instead, many (not all) curse and condemn the Church at Rome. Yet which should one believe? Scripture, or Protestantism? <br /><br /><i>Ben I'm not sure why you would like to meander around on all these others topics, None of them have anything to do with this post. Is there a reason why many Romanists can never stay on a topic? Or are you embarrassed by the sloppy research on this particular Luther quote your fellow Romanists have put forth?</i> <br /><br />I don’t see it as meandering. I just think fundamentally the Protestant opposition to Marian teachings such as the IC stem from a deep-seated prejudice against the Roman Church and her authority, coupled with an appalling ignorance of what Scripture actually teaches about the saints and the honor and “worship” (doxa) which God himself bestows on them. Read Luke:<br /><br />“But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have <b>WORSHIP</b> in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” <a href="http://bible.cc/luke/14-10.htm" rel="nofollow"> Luke 14:10 </a> KJV <br /><br />Note that in the New Testament -as in the Old - both God and man are worthy of praise, or what is sometimes translated (in NT) as “worship”! <a href="http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1391" rel="nofollow">Doxa</a>Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-91208737247878612932010-11-18T06:33:45.794-05:002010-11-18T06:33:45.794-05:00Rev. McCain is list about half of the 121 volumes ...<i>Rev. McCain is list about half of the 121 volumes - 121 volumes!! - of the Weimar Ed. online. See his posting here. According to Wikipedia, the Weimar was begun in 1883 and only just finished in 2009. </i><br /><br />WA is arranged in four parts: Writings (WA),Letters (WA Br, or Briefe), Table talk (WA TR or Tischreden) and the German Bible (WA DB). This set was supposed to follow a chronological sequence, but more Luther material was found after the set had been put in motion. When newer items are found, or better source documents of previous material, they are released in volumes entitled, Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe (AWA). Perhaps the AWA volumes make the set add up to 121. <br /><br />In all the quotes I've looked up, I've never come across a reference to say, a volume 119, or 120, but again, it could very well be the AWA volumes make the set bigger. Regardless, what's available now is substantial, comprising the majority of Luther's writings. <br /><br /><i>Have you asked most “pop-Catholic apologists” about this, or are you simply making it up? ;)</i><br /><br />I read many of their websites daily. None of them mentioned actually reading it. If you can produce a pop-RC apologist that's read volume 69, please do so. It appears, you'll be the first, given the researcher you are. If you need instructions on how to order this book, let me know.<br /><br /><i>Really? You mean kinda like this?</i><br /><br />Sure Grisar agreed with Denifle at times, but shame on you if you ignore those areas in which he did not.<br /><br /><i>Well James, fact is, “a” church is not the same as “The” Church! All heretics have their churches. </i><br /><br />If "The Church" refers to Roman Catholicism, that church is heretical.<br /><br />Ben I'm not sure why you would like to meander around on all these others topics, None of them have anything to do with this post. Is there a reason why many Romanists can never stay on a topic? Or are you embarrassed by the sloppy research on this particular Luther quote your fellow Romanists have put forth? <br /><br />If you'll read this post carefully (it is in English), you'll notice that it was none other than Hartmann Grisar who made important historical comments on this particular Luther quote. <br /><br />It was one of your fellow Romanists who read the same Grisar book, and ignored the fact that Luther deleted the very comment in question. What's wrong? Are you guys afraid of going deep into history? <br /><br />Here's a bonus question for you. In my post under "The Roman Catholic Runaround" can you identify the author of the quote in brown font that insulted me repeatedly, provided a bogus reference, and gave me instructions on how to use Google?James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com