ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Martin Luther's Reformation

Wasn't the Reformation really Luther against Erasmus and Thomas More - the leading humanist and Catholic minds of the era? There was Church corruption (as well as decent Catholic clergy). Luther had fair points but didn't he also go off the rails?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Ed on 5/29/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (7)

Post a New Blog



"Holy Tradition (as found in the consensus teaching of the Fathers, and the first seven Holy Ecumenical Synods) never contradicted written accounts!" -Ignatius

But why, then, does your church (I guess you're orthodox since you only recognice the 7 first ec.councils)honour icons? Because of Nicea 787?

But the Bible says:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee ANY graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt NOT BOW DOWN thyself to them, NOR SERVE them..." (Ex.20:4-5).

(This is even the 2nd commandment - which tradition happens to have "removed"...)

Please read Matt.5:17-20 + 15:6-9
---emmy on 9/7/10


Mark V #2
5) "is cannonical is due to divine inspiration." Yes, but as I told you, in accordance with the practice of Jesus Christ and the Holy Apostles, divine inspiration can indeed exist outside of Scriptura texts. Holy Scriptures is not a vacuum of all Truth, but a reflection or part of Holy Tradition (all of which is preserved in Orthodoxy). Why did Jesus Christ and the Holy Apostles used extra Biblical traditions (found in the Oral Torah, Holy Oral Tradition) and used extra biblical sources?

6) You can't get around this because you are stuck in Protestant Ideology and condemning the Roman Church' false traditions that are rooted in neither Scripture or Holy (oral) Tradition (I agree with you in this).

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/7/10


Mark V,

1) It is about Sola Scriptura. You defended it earlier. I simply pointed out your extra biblical and anti-biblical tradition!

2) I do in trust in God. God used the Fathers to canonized Scriptures and defended against heresies. All extra biblical sources and authoritative!

3) I never defended Traditions of Men, but only Holy Tradition as passed along by the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, the Early God-Bearing Fathers, the first Seven Holy Synods, etc.

4) You believe that God gave us Holy Scriptures as the only authority, but I already pointed that your tradition of men was not believe by Jesus Christ or the Apostles! You never reply to my posts, because you can't refute the irrefutable!

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/7/10


Another instance wherein the Apostles used extra biblical Tradition that came from the Oral Torah (Talmud) can be found in Galatians 3:19 and Acts 7:53, where it is point out repeatedly that the Law given to Moses was not directly given to him by God, but it was given to him by God through His angels. The OT as we have received it does not contain such a teaching. In fact, it points out that God Himself gave Moses the Law. But the Apostles knew that the Oral Torah contained fuller truths than what the OT seem to say.

The Ancient Talmuds of the Jews, in Pesikta Rabbati, taught that Moses in his visions had ascended into Heaven, where he had to convince the angels to give him the Law for Israel and all the world.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/7/10


Igantius, my answers were not concerning Sola Scriptura, they were about how the manuscripts came to be authoritive.
While your Church and the RCC claims they gave us Scripture instead of God, your faith is in what man can do and not what God has done. Even when you know that all through history man has perverted the Word with his own traditions, you still defend them, because of tradition. So you believe that they only can tell what truth really is. God gave us the Scriptures as our final and only authority in all matters of faith and morals. The church is subject to the authority of the Scriptures, not the other way around. God is soley responsible for bringing us His Truth. That a book is cannonical is due to divine inspiration.
---MarkV. on 9/7/10




Ignatius 2: Please post,
The Roman Catholics accept the authority of their Church in addition to and sometimes over Scripture. The fulness of Truth they maintain is contained not in Scripture alone but in both Scripture and traditions, and by traditions they mean the teachings of the church. Teachings that do not have their roots in Scripture but have evolved over many centuries and have finally been define as dogma by the Church. Man taking credit over God.
One reason why man is elevated to sainthood and Mary to deity. They get the glory that only belongs to God. Because without God they can do nothing. Another reason for man's works for salvation. The very reason that cancer has spread to all denominations.
---MarkV. on 9/7/10


"Tradition is no problem when it is built on Scripture." (emmy)

But emmy, certain New Testament doctrines (Life after death, Abraham's Bosom, Moses's Seat, the names of the magicians in Exodus 7:11,22, etc) were all based on extra bibical Jewish Tradition (the Oral Torah)!

"But what happens when Tradition (chruch fathers and councils) and Sctipture contradict eachother? "

Holy Tradition (as found in the consensus teaching of the Fathers, and the first seven Holy Ecumenical Synods) never contradicted written accounts!

But emmy, you follow the Holy Tradition of the Fathers (and councils) when it comes to the canonization of the NT! Why do you follow extra biblical Tradition?

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/6/10


Samual,

Concerning the canonization of Scriptures, the Fathers weren't in agreement until much later in Church History. The Muratorian Canon, The Canons Of Origen (A.D. c. 185 - 254), Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 - 340), Codex Claromontanus, Saint Cyril Of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350), Cheltenham, Saint Athanasius (A.D. 367), The 'Apostolic Canons' (c. A.D. 380), Saint Gregory Of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-89), Amphilochius Of Iconium (d. 394),Third Synod Of Carthage (A.D. 397), Councils of Rome/Hippo, etc, ALL disagree on what books should belong in the NT (and even the OT).

It took a long time before Orthodox Christians decided which extra biblical tradition is correct. Heck, even the Reformers weren't in agreement!

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/6/10


Samuel-.

Not necessary. How do you know Saint Matthew wrote the first Gospel? Or that Saint John the Theologian wrote the fourth Gospel and 1-3 John? That came from Oral (Holy) Tradition. Who wrote Hebrews?

I told before, there is only Holy Tradition (which includes Holy Scriptures).

Name some "traditions of men" after the 3rd century. Why after?

Most Protestants traditions were invented after the 15th century by the way.

And besides, why do you reject certain doctrines that was taught by the Fathers prior to the 3rd century (Baptismal Regeneration, Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, Apostolic Succession, etc).? So the gates of Hades prevailed after the 3rd century?

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/6/10


"JESUS answered..."It is written" Paul I 2tim 3 says Scripture is the center of truth." (Samuel)

It doesn't say "the center of truth". Those are your words, not Scriptures. If the written accounts of the Old Testament was the only authority, then Jesus Christ and the Holy Apostles were false teachers for they used traditions that came from the "Oral Torah" (Jewish term, Holy Tradition).

"All is judged by the Torah. "

But the Jews never limited God's word to just the Written Torah (research about the Oral Torah, Talmud). The problem with Jesus and the Pharisees was not about extra biblical traditions, but a distortion of Holy Tradition altogether.

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 9/6/10




Tradition is no problem when it is built on Scripture. But what happens when Tradition (chruch fathers and councils) and Sctipture contradict eachother?

The RCC often follows tradition. But here protestants would (or should!) say: No, sola scriptura!

Paul writes that the christians "are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" and "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph.2:20).

If one follows Tradition instead of what was stated by the Old Testament prophets or written by the apostles in the books of the New Testament, one has chosen ANOTHER foundation. Then it won't be God's house, but something else......
---emmy on 9/6/10


"the subject now is not sola Scriptura but the word of God" (Mark V)

It IS about Sola Scriptura. No one is questioning that the word of God can be found in Scriptures or that Scriptures are authoritative. But even Saint Paul and Saint Jude relied on extra biblical Tradition!

"You do not have to be told Ignatius, you should already know."

In other words, "The Bible is God's word, it is the only place we find God's word, so it is the only authority. Sure Ignatius, the Bible doesn't say, but you should already know".

Thank-you Mark V for proving my point. Sola Scriptura is a extra biblical tradition ("traditions of men").

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/6/10


If the Bible was the only authority and self-interpreted, then we will find in the Bible where A) It said so, and B) It gives a list of canonical books...

But as we can see, Sola Scriptura fails to achieve both premisess. Ignatius

A is wrong. JESUS answered the Devil with "It is written" Paul I 2tim 3 says Scripture is the center of truth.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.
All is judged by the Torah.

When the early church Fathers chose books of the NT they had to be written by Apostles. Tradition come from men many of which are from after the 3rd century and invented. So which is higher Scripture or tradition?
---Samuel on 9/6/10


Mark V,

1) Saint Paul told the Early Christians to follow both what was written and not written (Oral Traditions). Both is Apostolic Tradition, not traditions of man. Traditions of Man" are very different than Apostolic Tradition [s].

2) Jesus condemned traditions of man, but he held certain Jewish Traditions (i.e., John 10:22).

3) Saint Paul condemned traditions of man (Col 2:8) but he also relied on certain Jewish Traditions (2 Tim 2:8) which weren't wrong.

4) You follow Jewish Pharisaical traditions when it comes to the canonization of the OT.

5) You relied on extra biblical sources for the canonization of the NT and other things.

6) Sola Scriptura is a extra biblical tradition.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/6/10


Mark V-

Sola Scriptura is wrong because we needed extra biblical sources (Holy [oral] Tradition, God's word) to tell us which books are Scriptures.

If you have read the writings of the Pre-Nicene Fathers and Eusebius' "Church History", you would know that Early Christians wasn't sure which books were "Scriptures" and which were not. Books such as the Didache, Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, etc, were regraded as Scriptures by many.

Books that are NOW in our NT (such as Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation) were not regarded as Scriptures by most.

It took centuries for the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to clearly defined the NT Scriptures boundary.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/6/10


Jesus condemned "traditions of men", not Holy Tradition (as He even followed Tradition's doctrine of the Festival of Dedication, now called Hanakah, in John 10:22 and Moses Seat in Matthew 23:1-3). But what were these traditions? Extra Biblical? Nay. They involved extraneous interpretations and faulty applications of the OT, which were never the original teachings and practices of the Prophets in their Holy Tradition (Jesus and the Apostles gave the true interpretations of the OT). They were new interpretations and practices of the OT.

Some NT doctrines came from extra biblical Jewish Tradition: Life after death, Abraham's Bosom, Moses's Seat, the names of the magicians in Exodus 7:11,22, etc.

In IC.XC.,
---IGnatius on 9/6/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


I wonder how many people have actually read ANY works of Luther, or even the 95 Theses.

One of them says, "Apostolic parodins [i.e., indulgences] are not to be lightly despised."
---Cluny on 9/5/10


"But God had taken steps to ensure that His message would always be available."
I agree he has!

You say its not so!
is NOT in scripture anywhere, but is a traditional belief. This does not mean it is wrong, but it IS non-biblical.

Is this not Christ himself speaking to you?
And is this not an assurance to you or taking steps?

John 6:45
It is written in the prophets!
And they shall be all taught of God! (Is this not clear?)
Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
---TheSeg on 9/5/10


MarkV:

"but God had taken steps to ensure that His message would always be available." is NOT in scripture anywhere, but is a traditional belief. This does not mean it is wrong, but it IS non-biblical.

The copies of God's Word that we have have are imperfect (we have multiple sets of manuscripts that differ), and are incomplete (there are books mentioned in scripture itself, as being authoritative, that we no longer possess). But there is nothing wrong with that. The manuscripts are close enough to agreeing (they differ mostly in minor points) and few books are missing.

The Bible is one long history of God working his perfection though incomplete and imperfect vessels. Why should this one be any different?
---StrongAxe on 9/5/10


Kev:

How do YOU, personally, know which books the Holy Spirit selected to be part of Scripture? You rely on the testimony of those who went before you, and they relied on the testimony of those who went before, and so on, and so on. The word for this process is "tradition". We have our canons of scripture because they were established long ago, and passed down to us via tradition.

Note also that II Peter 1:20 refers specifically to prophecy. The decision on what constitutes the scriptural canon is not, in itself, prophecy.
---StrongAxe on 9/5/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Stongaxe, I believe I have answered your question with my answer. " "but God had taken steps to ensure that His message would always be available." What you question is whether God ensured that we receive the correct books or not. If you cannot believe that God insured that we receive the correct books and not others, then you can never trust God's Word as Truth. For then it was man not God who brought you the Word of God.
The councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century did not give us the canon of Scripture, rather they simply confirmed what was already accepted as canonical while been moved by the Holy Spirit, for God ensured we would continue to recive His message.
---MarkV. on 9/5/10


No circular argument can prove the authority of scripture.
---didimus on 9/5/10


"You can't disprove Biblical claims to be the only authority." (hop)

But the Bible makes no such claim. That is a extra biblical tradition.

If the Bible was the only authority and self-interpreted, then we will find in the Bible where A) It said so, and B) It gives a full list of canonical books that belong in the Old Testament and New Testament.

But as we can see, Sola Scriptura fails to achieve both premises!

Jesus Christ followed Jewish Tradition, Saint Paul quoted from Holy Tradition, alluded to Jewish Tradition, and use extra biblical sources (as did Saint Jude). Saint Paul told the Early Christians NOT to follow only what was written (2 Thes 2:15).

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/5/10


Ignatius, the subject now is not sola Scriptura but the word of God. You say:
"Mark The Church followed both what was written and unwritten, set forth by the Holy Apostles and there successors (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2). Not once have we have been told that God's word can be found only in the written account"
You do not have to be told Ignatius, you should already know. The passage you gave in 2 Thess. "Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught. (what were they taught?) whether by word or our epistle."
He was not talking about the traditions of man for in Matt. 15:2,3,6, Jesus said, " Why do ye also trangress the commandment of God by your traditions?
---MarkV. on 9/5/10


Shop For Christian Loans


Ignatius 2: now go to Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13, 1 Cor. 11:2, in Gal. 1:14 we find out what traditions Paul was talking about in 2 Thess.
"And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealious, for the traditions of my fathers" Those were the oral teachings about O.T. law commonly known as "Halakah."
So we know the traditions spoken of in 2 Thess, are not the traditions of man. They always go against what God has said. You support the traditions of your denomination which is not the Word of God but the word of man. You can add or subtract whatever you want. For you believe the Bible is not the only Truth, that is the tradition of your church and the RCC.
---MarkV. on 9/5/10


No circular argument can challenge the authority of scripture. Its authority has remained for all time. And it will continue to. If we abide by Scripture's commands early, the better. If we fail, Scripture won't suffer. We will. The law of the universe as God ordained is only reiterated in scripture. Repeating Stanley Jones who rightly explains Jesus' Words says that the one who dashes himself against the rock (Truth/Scripture) will harm himself. but he on him it falls will be crushed. There's no coming around it. History, psychology, sociology, name it..they have proved Scripture's claims and demands. That is why centuries of tradition were powerless in front of frail Luther. You can't disprove Biblical claims to be the only authority.
---hop on 9/4/10


The New Testament Church was living and following the (Orthodox) Apostolic Faith long before the Holy Spirit guided the Church to write Scriptures, and then it took centuries after for a agreement on what books belong in the NT. The New Testament texts is a reflection of certain aspects of Holy Tradition (John 20:30, Acts 20:35), but it does not contain the totality of it.

That is why Saint Irenaeus wrote that, in refutation of the heretics, that even if the Apostles never wrote a letter/book, one would be force to rely only on those Churches which had Apostolic origin. The Gnostics did not accept the oral teachings of the Apostolic churches nor Scriptures (Against Heresies, 4, 26:2). The Church had both for witness.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/4/10


II Peter 1:20, ''So that ye first know this, that no prophecie in the Scripture is of anie priuate interpretation.'' (the Protestant Geneva Bible)

Do you believe this?

//so one must rely on some outside source (whether Holy Tradition, personal inspiration from the Holy Spirit, personal wisdom, trust that the Holy Spirit has somehow guided mankind to preserve scriptures, etc.) - and such outside sources are, by definition, outside scripture. // Sounds like private interpretation and men's traditions.

Sola Scriptura.

//trust that the Holy Spirit has somehow guided mankind to preserve scriptures,//
And that's of no private interpretation. (Truly).

Any other Protestants agree?
---Kev on 9/4/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Mark V,

The fact remains. Sola Scriptura is a extra biblical tradition. The Church followed both what was written and unwritten, set forth by the Holy Apostles and there successors (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2). Not once have we have been told that God's word can be found only in the written account.

The fact that you have 39 books in the Old Testament is based upon Jewish Pharisaical tradition, and you have 27 books in your NT (in the extant order and names of books) because of Holy Tradition. You wouldn't have the NT if it were not from extra biblical authority.

Your understanding of the Holy Trinity, and Christological/Incarnational dogmas is because of the Fathers (extra biblical source).

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/4/10


Ignatius:

My question was not directed at you, but rather to MarkV (or anyone else who goes by Sola Scriptura). The internal logical fallacy with Sola Scriptura is that scripture does not itself define just whichi books are part of scripture and which are not, so one must rely on some outside source (whether Holy Tradition, personal inspiration from the Holy Spirit, personal wisdom, trust that the Holy Spirit has somehow guided mankind to preserve scriptures, etc.) - and such outside sources are, by definition, outside scripture. So if one rejects all authorities outside scripture, one must reject scripture itself, since it relies on such authorities. I have yet to hear a convincing argument refuting this.
---StrongAxe on 9/4/10


Idk about anyone else but I just trust God that He has delivered to us in the Bible the message that He intended us to have.

I mean we're supposed to have faith, right?

If God wrote his word by leading men with His Holy SPirit, then surely He has preserved it as well by the same means he delivered it to us.

Otherwise men have no hope in knowing the real truth.
---JackB on 9/4/10


hop,

Do you know anything about Eastern Christianity? Martin Luther wanted to reform the Roman Church, but Orthodoxy didn't need a reformation!

" The blessings that have followed are immense. So many have the Scripture to read and be edified"

And this concerns Martin Luther how exactly? We owe nothing to Martin Luther in this regard.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/4/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


"Can you cite any particular chapter and verse that specifies just which books......" (Strongaxe)

The reason why Protestants have 39 books in their OT (African Jews and the majority of Christians disagree) is merely based on Jewish Pharisaical tradition (extra biblical). On the other hand, they follow Holy Tradition when it comes to the canonization of the NT!

Most follow Holy Tradition when it comes to their understanding of the Holy Trinity and Christological/Incarnational dogmas.

The bottom line is that Protestants do rely on extra biblical sources or traditions, whether they admit it or not.

Sola Scriptura is anti-biblical.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/4/10


Ignatius, the RCC claim that they, not God, were the only one's capable of interpreting the Bible. Then later in time they took the Bible and because they accepted it as Truth, made it look as if they had made it Truth themselves which is the same thing you are saying. For many years the apostles taught the church all that God was revealing to them, and the church accepted their teaching. The church had every confidence that what the apostles taught them was indeed the will of God. Like the prophets before them, they too died "but God had taken steps to ensure that His message would always be available." The Holy Spirit guided the apostles to record God's will in the Scriptures, and the church accepted their writings.
---MarkV. on 9/4/10


Ignatius 2: Jesus gave the apostles the very worlds the Father had given Him and promised to sent the Holy Spirit to teach them, guide them, and recall to their minds all that He had told them during His earthly ministry. Part of the Spirit's guidance pertained to the writings of the 27 books that compose the New Testament. Under the Spirits guidance, the early church followed the same practice the Jews used to accumulated the writings of God's former spokespersons. Evidence show that the canon of Scripture that compose the Bible were cannonized by the fact that they are inspired of God. God had ensured that the message would always be available. The claim made by the RCC that they gave us the Bible cannot be sustained. God gave us the Bible.
---MarkV. on 9/4/10


The only time circular reasoning can be and has to be applied is an ultimate authority, for if something/someone can prove it, then it is no longer the ultimate authority.
It must be able to prove itself.
Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
---micha9344 on 9/4/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


MarkV:

Can you cite any particular chapter and verse that specifies just which books in the are authoritative and are part of the Bible, and which ones are not?
---StrongAxe on 9/3/10


"When the Bible is placed below tradition or on a equal basis then you have the same trap that the Jews fell into...." (Samuel)

That is why Eastern Christians for the past 2,000 years have understood that Holy Scriptures IS part of Holy Tradition.

"On these quotes of Paul only one affects doctrine. But it also agrees with what the Gospels tell us about JESUS."

Regardless, Saint Paul quoted Holy Tradition, extra biblical sources, and Jewish (oral) Tradition.

"Traditions of the RCC that are opposed to what the Bible teaches should be rejected"

I agree. On the other hand, Sola Scriptura (every variation of it) needs to be rejected as well.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/3/10


Mark - are you saying the Bible IS the word of God, or are you saying the Bible merely CONTAINS the word of God?

If you say the latter, then you have the problem of identifying which is and which is not.
---leej on 9/3/10


I do beleive that the Bible we have is the inspired word of God, and that writings that conflict with it or change it are false.

But I can see the argument of those who are against Sola Scripture ... Paul said that all scripture is given by God and is good for teaching ... etc.. The anti Sola Scripture man could say "Well he would say that, wouldn't he, because he is including his own writings among the God given"

To use Cluny's term, a circular argument.

Who endorsed the writings of Paul? They are not a historical account which could be supported by concurrent observers, but his own (God-given? that is the question) explanations and development of what is recorded in the Gospels.
---alan8566_of_uk on 9/3/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Like Moses of Israel who had minor flaws but was a greatly used instrument of God, Luther too is a fallible human however he was an instrument used to reform God's people. The blessings that have followed are immense. So many have the Scripture to read and be edified. History will have to reckon with people who go against the grain and dare to make a difference. It is easy to get lost in Luther's petty mistakes. Have you stopped to consider his achievements? Few have the courage to stand for the Truth at the expense of their very lives. You may wax about Moses but he was a man approved of God. SO WAS LUTHER. WAKE UP AND LEARN TO DISCERN TRUTH FROM ERROR.
---hop on 9/3/10


\\Cluny, God's Word can be found in the Word of God. Such a God cannot be found out by searching. He can be known only as He is revealed to the heart by the Holy Spirit through the Word.\\

Mark, you're giving a circular definition.

"You can find God's word in the Bible because the Bible is God's word and God said His word can be found in it."
---Cluny on 9/3/10


Paul quoted people who knew JESUS.

When the Bible is placed below tradition or on a equal basis then you have the same trap that the Jews fell into when they rejected the words of JESUS for their traditions. The Mormons also place their books on being equal to the bible. Yet I do not see how this is a good thing.

On these quotes of Paul only one affects doctrine. But it also agrees with what the Gospels tell us about JESUS.

Traditions of the RCC that are opposed to what the Bible teaches should be rejected just as Martin Luther and Protestants teach.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.
---Samuel on 9/3/10


7) You relied on extra biblical sources or Holy Tradition when it comes to canonization of the Bible. In regard to the OT, Jesus or the Apostles never quoted every single book of the OT that you have in your Bible. One can not reconstruct a canonical list for the OT simply by reading the NT.

8) The same goes for the NT.

9) It is hrough the Fathers that shaped your understanding of the Holy Trinity and Christological/Incarnational dogmas.

Divine inspiration and God's word can be found outside Scriptures (i.e.,prophesy was in the Apostolic Church). Holy Scriptures is part of Holy Tradition. It is highest form (and most authoritive) form of God's revelation.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/3/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


"...quote anything but scripture."

1) Jesus nor the Apostles ever quote from every book of the OT.

2) The Apostle Paul relied on (oral) Jewish Tradition in 2 Timothy 3:8.

3) Saint Jude relied on extra biblical books--> The book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (Jude 1:9,13)

4) Saint Paul told the Early Christians to follow what was written and was passed along (orally) (2 Thes 2:15)

5) The writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander was quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus.

6) Jesus followed Jewish Tradition (John 10:22-23). Where is Hanukkah in your OT?

7) Saint Paul quoted Holy Tradition (Acts 20:35)

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/3/10


Cluny, God's Word can be found in the Word of God. Such a God cannot be found out by searching. He can be known only as He is revealed to the heart by the Holy Spirit through the Word.
---MarkV. on 9/3/10


\\God never mentioned His Word could be found someplace else. \\

OK. Where did He say it could be found?
---Cluny on 9/3/10


Ignatius, you said,
"None of these Scriptures proves Sola Scriptura, because none states that ONLY what is written can be counted as God's word (c.f. 2 Thes 2:15). It only proves that what is written in Scriptures is God's word and authoritative."
If the word of God proves that scripture is God's Word and authoritive, and no where does it say that man's word is authoritive or equal to God's how can you say that God's Word is found some place else? God never mentioned His Word could be found someplace else. So someone in time said, "that is God's Word, which is authoritive, but we also have God's Word that is not in the Bible, you must believe us as much as you believe God's Word." Just nonesense.

---MarkV. on 9/3/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


I don't see any apostle nor Jesus quote anything but scripture.
Is not scripture sufficient?
What writings are equal to scripture?
Why are they not part of scripture?
And again, Is not scripture sufficient?
---micha9344 on 9/2/10


None of these Scriptures proves Sola Scriptura, because none states that ONLY what is written can be counted as God's word (c.f. 2 Thes 2:15). It only proves that what is written in Scriptures is God's word and authoritative.

Try again.

The fact that you accept 27 books as the "New Testament" in the exact order you have them, and the exact books you have, proves that you accept extra biblical tradition.

For it was through the Early Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit, who canonized the New Testament (through councils) and told you which books to accept and reject.

It was also through the Fathers that shaped your understanding of the Holy Trinity and Christological/Incarnational dogmas.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/2/10


Sola Scriptura?
Mat 2:5b it is written by the prophet,
Mat 4:4b It is written,
Mat 4:6b for it is written (said Satan)
Mat 4:7b It is written again,
Mat 4:10b for it is written,
Mat 11:10b of whom it is written
-half a chapter down 26 1/2 to go.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Acts 8:35b began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Acts 17:2b reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:11b searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so
Scripture not sufficient?
---micha9344 on 9/2/10


\\Simon is Apostle Peter, and his wife's mother in law had fever. Apostle Peter was married, and had a wife. \\

And your point is?

Don't forget, St. Peter also told Christ, "Behold, we have left all and followed You." And in reply, Christ talked about the great blessings in this world AND the next granted to those who left WIVES and family for His sake.
---Cluny on 9/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


ignatius,

i keep hearing you claim others use sola scriptura. can you tell us what else you use?
---aka on 9/2/10


Ignatius, God has the last Word on His Word, that is the purpose of "Sacra Scripura sui interpres"
Sola scriptura is one of five solas, that Protestants consider the theological pillars of the Reformation. The main principles indicate that any interpretations or applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves. The Bible is final authority. The rule is that God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else can do so.
All through history the RCC establish articles of faith that opposed Scripture as the catechism concering the Second Commandment removal from their rules of faith. They abandon the Word of God for their tradition in order to justify thier idol worship.
---MarkV. on 9/2/10


There shouldn't be any corruption issues. For the luth, cog, presby, naz, bapt, meth, aog etc trin - churches Are the offspring churches from the Man - made trin - rcc . Matt.15 v's 9 & 14, 2nd.Cor.11 v's 14 - 15, Rev. 17 v's 4 - 6. All in the family.
---Lawrence on 9/2/10


"I'll stick with Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) and not men's traditions." (Kev)

But Sola Scriptura (every variation of it) IS a man made tradition. Such a teaching has NEVER been taught by any of the Eastern Apostolic Churches (Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy/Ethiopian, Syriac, etc).

John Calvin and other reformers did adhere to some form of Sola Scriptura, but he, nor any of the Protestant Reformers, has the last word on anything.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/1/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


This is a papist argument. I'll stick with the Protestant Bible (that was faithfully translated out of the Hebrew-Greek originals which is God's worde) and not the Pope's traditions (which is the traditions of men).

Roman Catholics charge that Apostle Peter was the very first Pope (and yet in Marke 1:30, Apostle Peter had a wife!) although Popes NEVER have a wife. That is a great contradiction.

Marke 1:30, And Simons wiues mother in law laye sicke of a feuer, and anone they told him of her. (1560 Protestant Geneva Bible)

Simon is Apostle Peter, and his wife's mother in law had fever. Apostle Peter was married, and had a wife.

I'll stick with Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) and not men's traditions.
---Kev on 9/1/10


"Today's churches - at least its leaders/spokesmen - seem not to bother about the SOLO SCRIPTURA." (emmy)

Sola Scriptura (note the correct spelling) is a tradition of man (such traditions is what Christ and Saint Paul condemned, Matthew 15:1-14, Col 2:8) .

Prove Sola Scriptura using Scriptures alone. Can you?

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/1/10


"he would probably not have joined the Lutheran chruch... " (emmy)

On the other hand, if Martin Luther was alive today, he would not join any modern day Evangelical Church. For one, He believed in Baptismal Regeneration, Real Presence in the Eucharist, Infant Baptism, intercession of the Theotokos, the Ever-Virginity of Mary, defended the title "theotokos", as well as many other things. He also approved of liturgical worship, the used of incense, etc.

The problem with the Lutheran churches is that you find variation between them (i.e., some do not have liturgical worship) while others are more "Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental/Syriac" in worship (etc) and in tuned with her predecessor.

In IC.XC.,
---Ignatius on 9/1/10


If Martin Luther lived today, he would probably not have joined the Lutheran chruch... The church bearing his name has slovly, but surely moved back towards the RCC (remember the joint declaration 1999! The RCC has not changed... so who has?).

I think Luther would have continued his reforming work if he lived today.

Today's churches - at least its leaders/spokesmen - seem not to bother about the SOLO SCRIPTURA. What seems to be important is being popular... especially among nonbelievers and nominal christians... and bowing down for the pope... who still claims to be the vicar of christ...

I don't think Luther would have joined them in this "christian ecumenical effort"....
I don't think Jesus would neither...
---emmy on 9/1/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Martin Luther and Erasmus were more friends than not. Sure, Martin Luther and Erasmus argued with each other a little bit. John Foxe's book ''The Actes and Monuments of Martyrs" explains the true story well.

The fact is, Erasmus published the Greek New Testament and ''Praise of Folly'' (exposing the follies of the Roman Catholic Church). Martin Luther used Erasmus' Greek New Testament in his Bible translation.

But, Thomas More was a persecutor of William Tyndale. William Tyndale an Apostle of England undertook the task to translate the Scriptures out of the Hebrew-Greek originals so that the people could read the Bible. Thomas More fiercely opposed this and did everything in his power to persecute William Tyndale.
---Kev on 8/30/10


Protestants, I challenge you to not be Protestants in name only- but learn your history!

John Foxe, a true Protestant and historian, wrote a very famous book, "The Actes and Monuments of Martyrs" published in 1563, 1570, 1576, and 1583. It has over 2,000 pages. Why don't you study them? Why do you instead study corrupt editions of John Foxe's Book of Martyrs where 2,000 pages are deleted so only 100 page remains? And even so, it's re-written! And not only that, it's riddled with NKJV/NIV (which was not in existence when John Foxe wrote his book in the 1500s).

Martin Luther absolutely was a true Christian man. How do I really know this? Because I studied history (that is, John Foxe's book of 1583). Protestants, study this.
---Kev on 8/30/10


Bill
St Paul (not me) says that salvation can only happen with love (not calculated love - that isn't real love!). He gives a better explanation than i could ever give in a million years about what love is - in the famous passage: Corinthians 13.
And, of course, Jesus' whole life was one act (and example) of love (sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness and humility, in particular, stand out for me) as well as his many teachings, such as the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaratin).
It's all about Love.
---Ed on 6/18/07


Hi, Ed . . . you have said love is the main ingredient of salvation.

So, Luther's rethinking and reforming doctrine and practice is not enough. Look at how "a number" of Protestants are today...just Sunday-only practicers...like "a numb number" of Catholics.

They go, they copy-cat what was preplanned and canned for them to do and recite, and choose who is worth their love and attention...and make God look distant or in need of a camouflage of robes and outward practices.
---Bill_bila5659 on 6/16/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Elder, I believe in what Jesus said, if you choose not to, that is your business. As for statues, we have all sizes, but we view Christ differently we are the Mystical Body of Christ His Temple built of flesh and blood and spanning the whole of the Earth. We have token statues of Christ but they do not compare to the real deal that is within us and around us every day.
---lorra8574 on 5/31/07


Elder P2: I have felt Jesus, spoken to Him on a spiritual level, been cleansed by Him in the sacraments and leaned on Him in times of trouble. If the saints could do that, we probably wouldn't bother with statues. Statues are like photographs, they remind us of our loved ones who have gone ahead of us. The saints are role models and intercessors, but they are not Jesus.
---lorra8574 on 5/31/07


Elder P3, Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ. Why are you are denying His divinity? Mary was human and created by Christ, but that does not mean that she could not give birth to Him - the Gospels say that she did and therefore she is the mother of God, the only mother He ever had. Even many of the Reformers understood this, as well as her perpetual virginity. 30,0000 different denominations and a whole group of individuals denying all other churches expose a problem outside of the RCC.
---lorra8574 on 5/31/07


I am no Pope Catholic, am also not a protestant I am a fundamentalist reborn-in-the-blood Christian. Who is Luther? Did he die for our sins? I heard of his church. I would rather be in the Lords Church, not one named after a man.
---Bob on 5/31/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


1. knock. knock. knock. It's so easy to knock other denominations. Such as Protestant tele-evangelists who rip innocent people off. Or the Protestants behind the racism against blacks in America - going back centuries. Or fide solo (St Paul says that without love faith is useless). Or "Protestants" actually being a dispora of different factions with different beliefs. Or the self-righteous calvinistic belief of predestination. Or the protestants out there who don't know what they believe.
---Ed on 5/31/07


2. Actually who are "Protestants" - who are the true believers? Anglicans, Quakers, Lutherans, Charasmatics, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Methodists, Pentecostalists, Seventh Adventists, Waldensians, Reformed, Evangelical.
Baptists claim to be pre-Reformation.

And yet there are decent, Christian Protestants as there are decent, Christian Catholics. We were all Catholics once (in the Middle Ages, when there were decent and corrupt clergy). And RCC has reformed radically since then.
---Ed on 5/31/07


3. Lets not forget the thousands of Catholic missionaries out there - living in apostolic poverty - and converting hundreds of thousands of people to Christianity in Africa, South America and Asia.
The majority of practising Catholics are now in these countries - in the poor countries - tens of millions. One small Catholic country in Africa prbably contains more Christians than the whole of the Southern Baptists.
My point: stop knocking Catholicism out of ignorance and prejudice.
---Ed on 5/31/07


Hey, lorra8574, I am also willing to "bet" that when the Priest stands in the "church" and holds up a wafer and says, "This is the body of Christ" it isn't.
What is going to happen when your wafer god crumbles?
Why are statutes of Mary larger in the RC churches than the statues of Christ?
Why is Mary said to be the mother of God? Is/was she preexistent?
Someone is off the rails for sure. You are involved in a train wreck, so sorry.
---Elder on 5/31/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Hey Mike, they haven't conned you. You have it all worked out and you are willing to bet your immortal soul on that. So am I, that is why I remain a Catholic.
---lorra8574 on 5/30/07


And the rcc went off the rails at their very onset.
---MARK_N on 5/30/07


I am a Protestant, and I have read the 95 theses.
There was a very good and relative one, if giving moiney gets the soul out of purgatory, why hasn't the RCC spent all its wealth on doing that, instead of conning us.
---mike8384 on 5/30/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.