If The Reformation Never Happened . . .

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Does ALL include Christ? Christ is human, and a first century Jew uniquely and inseparably joined to Divinity. Did Christ fall short of the glory of God? Did He sin? And, if He didn't sin did He use magic or His divinity to separate His humanity from the "sin nature of man" (sin nature is the Protestant paradigm not mine)?
Have you considered reading Scripture in the context in which it was given? If you do try that then you will realize that your line of questions in this regard ignores the given categories and as a consequence are contrary to that context..

For example, "Therefore by the deeds of the law shall be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe for there is no difference. For all have sinned..." Romans 3:20-23... -KJV

The justification of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, the One who was prophesied and manifested, is unto all, that means no exceptions, and upon all that believe, again no exceptions. For all have sinned, again no exceptions, ...

Try reading Scripture as if it is God"s word, authoritative, and has something to say you rather than you to it.
 

JoeT

Member
All are of the priesthood of believers. And no, not all are prophets. Where'd you get that one from?



Huh?
Therein is my complaint, Protestants all claim the rights to prophecy yet Scripture says that prophecy, which I claim includes interpretations, is not a private matter.

JoeT
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
Luther used the term prophet to refer to himself as a pastor and preacher who proclaimed the gospel. Joe's objection may come down to laying on of hands and / or claim to apostolic succession. The elephant in the room however is that assemblies are granted the right to select their own pastors.
Joe will have to elaborate. Being a pastor or a preacher of the gospel does not make one a prophet. The acceptance of or denial of the gospel and its consequences are detailed in the bible. Nothing prophetic about it. And being able to select a pastor is a very common thing. Churches interview and discuss a pastors qualifications and they either bring them on or don't. Not sure what the issue is there either. Joes comment is simply out in left field.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
If the reformation never happened the gospel and church would still be under the iron jack boot of Roman perverts.
Perverts is a fitting description of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, from their perverted priests to their perverted popes. That word alone amplifies just how far off the biblical standard of morality and spirituality they really are, because the word itself refers to something that has been severely twisted and distorted. Just think how very twisted the 'religious' institution known as the Roman Catholic Church has become, - so much so, that no one should be surprised if they are on the brink of presenting their perverted sexual vices not only as a right, but also as a fundamental right to be protected and not criminalized. And this is the "church" and these are the people who are supposed to shining lights to a dark and sinful world? :mad:
 

mica

Well-known member
Perverts is a fitting description of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, from their perverted priests to their perverted popes. That word alone amplifies just how far off the biblical standard of morality and spirituality they really are, because the word itself refers to something that has been severely twisted and distorted. Just think how very twisted the 'religious' institution known as the Roman Catholic Church has become, - so much so, that no one should be surprised if they are on the brink of presenting their perverted sexual vices not only as a right, but also as a fundamental right to be protected and not criminalized. And this is the "church" and these are the people who are supposed to shining lights to a dark and sinful world? :mad:
They been deceived into believing that they are.

They don't know His light.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Perverts is a fitting description of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, from their perverted priests to their perverted popes. That word alone amplifies just how far off the biblical standard of morality and spirituality they really are, because the word itself refers to something that has been severely twisted and distorted. Just think how very twisted the 'religious' institution known as the Roman Catholic Church has become, - so much so, that no one should be surprised if they are on the brink of presenting their perverted sexual vices not only as a right, but also as a fundamental right to be protected and not criminalized. And this is the "church" and these are the people who are supposed to shining lights to a dark and sinful world? :mad:
It is a clear indicator that it has false doctrines and teachings. Actions speak.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Therein is my complaint, Protestants all claim the rights to prophecy
This is a strange claim, what is the evidence that led you to this false conclusion?
yet Scripture says that prophecy, which I claim includes interpretations, is not a private matter.

JoeT
Are you thinking of 2 Peter 1:19-21?
"And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hear: 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." -DRA

If so then the prophecies which Peter speaks of were inspired by God rather than originated from the private interpretation of men. The evidence which made these prophesies more sure was what the eye-witnesses saw and heard.

"For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness.

17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. " 2 Peter 1:16-18 --DRA

I think most Christians agree that people don't get to just make stuff up and whatever they may come up with is subject to being tested in light of the Scriptures.

An important aspect of what Peter wrote is that people should cling to the Prophetic word and the Apostolic witness, the Scriptures, rather than the word of fellow servants who are not God incarnate. His stated reasons are that there were false prophets and there would be false prophets among them, some will even deny the Master who bought them. Remember Romans 3:20-25?

All interpretations which don't bend the knee to what Scripture says and instead bend the knee to extra-biblical ideas or personalities are false.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Luther used the term prophet to refer to himself as a pastor and preacher who proclaimed the gospel. Joe's objection may come down to laying on of hands and / or claim to apostolic succession. The elephant in the room however is that assemblies are granted the right to select their own pastors.
The post was probably an allusion to a myth in some Roman Catholic circles that Luther considered himself a prophet of God. It has been some years since the topic came up. The closest that I could find at the time was Luther saying that he was a prophet of the German people to the Pope and the world.

@Tertiumquid was also involved in the discussion. He may remember more or may have chased down and documented the source of the myth.
 

balshan

Well-known member
This is a strange claim, what is the evidence that led you to this false conclusion?

Are you thinking of 2 Peter 1:19-21?
"And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hear: 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." -DRA

If so then the prophecies which Peter speaks of were inspired by God rather than originated from the private interpretation of men. The evidence which made these prophesies more sure was what the eye-witnesses saw and heard.

"For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness.

17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. " 2 Peter 1:16-18 --DRA

I think most Christians agree that people don't get to just make stuff up and whatever they may come up with is subject to being tested in light of the Scriptures.

An important aspect of what Peter wrote is that people should cling to the Prophetic word and the Apostolic witness, the Scriptures, rather than the word of fellow servants who are not God incarnate. His stated reasons are that there were false prophets and there would be false prophets among them, some will even deny the Master who bought them. Remember Romans 3:20-25?

All interpretations which don't bend the knee to what Scripture says and instead bend the knee to extra-biblical ideas or personalities are false.
Excellent points in your post. I highlighted the artificial fables because that is where a lot of the RCC false claims and teachings come from. We know that the RCC leaders are false teachers and that it ignores even Peter's writings when it does not suit them.
 

Johan

Well-known member
This is a good example why St. Peter warns not to make 'private interpretations' [Cf. 2 Peter 1:20].
You should know better than to abuse 2 Peter 1:20 in this way. As BJ Bear has already pointed out, and countless before him, that verse has nothing to do with private interpretation of the Scriptures but with how prophecies have come about.
How does God sin? How is God made into sin? It's ludicrous suggest it.
I was careful to point out that Christ did not sin; yet you could not resist the urge to attack this straw man of yours.
Christ was not made 'sin' in the sense that He was infected with the acts of sin.
2 Cor. 5:21 literally says that Christ was made sin for us.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (NASB)

And this means more than simply a "sin sacrifice," as the symmetry of the verse demands. He was made sin for us so that we might become righteousness in Him. This is also known (at least in Evangelicalism) as the blessed exchange. He carried our sins (not abstract or imaginary sins, but our sins) in His body onto the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). It is precisely for that reason that those who believe in Him now stand justified (acquitted) before God.
 

Johan

Well-known member
Really? God declares what is evil to be a state of good?
Indeed. That is, in fact, the Gospel. God declares ungodly sinners righteous by virtue of their faith in Him rather than because of any righteous works of theirs (Rom. 4:5).
I suggest that the soul that is just is in a state of justice and honor.
I am not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean, but if you are indicating that the justified soul is intrinsically righteous, then you are suggesting a falsehood. Our justification is counterfactual, entirely based on the grace of God.
Christ commands the Christian, "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." [Matthew 5:48; Cf. Matthew 19:21, Luke 6:40, James 1:4]. What is perfection? "That which is lacking nothing." We are commanded to lack nothing in faith, hope, and charity.
And yet, you stumble in every way. Let me bring some really disheartening news to you: you are not, and will never be in this life, intrinsically perfect. If your endeavor is to become perfect by your own striving, then you will inevitably fail, and you make a mockery of the cross of Christ in the process. What He has commanded should rather bring you to your knees in despair before Him and, together with Paul, exclaim:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? (Rom. 7:24)

In the same manner, the brokenhearted tax collector:

God, have mercy on me, a sinner. (Luke 18:13)

But what Christ has demanded, He has also fulfilled. That is why we call Him our Savior. It is in Him, and because of His blood that took our sins away, that we have been made perfect before God.

For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Heb. 10:14)

Those are the good news that self-righteous Catholics simply refuse to believe.
The blood of Christ does indeed purify, we abide in that which lacks nothing. But, the Protestant paradigm doesn't imbibe in perfection, does it. How does this work, the unjust become just, perfectly, while symbolizing imbibing the emulgent separating purity from sin. If the Blood never falls on or in how then does it purify, symbolically?
As so often, your paragraphs are pretty obscure, but since you use the word "symbolically," I guess you are referencing the Eucharist. Suffice it to say, we have been justified by the real blood of Christ that took our very sins away on the real cross, rather than by the imaginary blood that you "consume" in your imagination alone.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
So when you go to your minister for confession, does he give you any penance to do?
I never go to a minister for confession, I go to God and confess my sins to Him alone, whom I have sinned against.

But for Roman Catholics who instead choose to confess his/ her sins to a Roman Catholic priest, do you promise the RC priest to come back and confess certain sins again each time he/ she commits them? Doesn't that alone prevent the Roman Catholic who makes that promise, from committing the sin(s) again because he/she simply does not want to endure the shame of confessing the same sin(s) over and over to the Roman Catholic priest again and again?
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Therein is my complaint, Protestants all claim the rights to prophecy yet Scripture says that prophecy, which I claim includes interpretations, is not a private matter.

JoeT
This is what happens when people refuse to read - let alone study - God's Word in full. They are an embarrassment to themselves, and cause their opponents to wonder. Paul's rhetorical questions to the church in Corinth (1Cor 12: 29) asks, "Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform miracles, do they?" with the obvious answer of "No" to each question.

To accuse all "Protestants" of claiming "the right to prophecy" shows not only an ignorance of God's Word, but also of "Protestantism" in general. I was a member of a Pentecostal church for many years, and even there, nobody thought all were prophets - and if anyone prophesied, it was examined against the Scripture - 1The 5:20 - 22 in action.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
The post was probably an allusion to a myth in some Roman Catholic circles that Luther considered himself a prophet of God. It has been some years since the topic came up. The closest that I could find at the time was Luther saying that he was a prophet of the German people to the Pope and the world.

@Tertiumquid was also involved in the discussion. He may remember more or may have chased down and documented the source of the myth.
I'm following this thread haphazardly rather than in any sort of Talmudic scrutiny. If "this discussion" refers to this very thread, Joe T. earlier posted a Table Talk quote.

Regardless, see Robert Kolb: Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520-1560 (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999).

“Luther’s concept of himself as a prophet differed, therefore, from the medieval eschatological vision of the prophet who was to come. His claims to the calling of apostle or prophet rested solely on his proclamation of the gospel. For him, what mattered was God’s word.” (p.31)

“Luther had no illusions about being an Enoch or Elijah returned from the grave…. What counted for Luther- and what linked him in his own mind with Elijah- was the Word of God in their mouths. He was firmly convinced that his tongue and pen proclaimed the same Word of God which Elijah proclaimed. Only because of this could he place himself in the ranks of prophets and apostles. Thus, much of the medieval notion of the prophet was not of importance for Luther. He claimed to possess no special gift beyond the Word which had been present in the mouths of the biblical prophets. His estimate of himself, as constructive promoter of the gospel or as destructive critic of false teaching, was only and only connected with the Word of God.” (p.31-32).
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I'm following this thread haphazardly rather than in any sort of Talmudic scrutiny. If "this discussion" refers to this very thread, Joe T. earlier posted a Table Talk quote.

Regardless, see Robert Kolb: Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520-1560 (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999).

“Luther’s concept of himself as a prophet differed, therefore, from the medieval eschatological vision of the prophet who was to come. His claims to the calling of apostle or prophet rested solely on his proclamation of the gospel. For him, what mattered was God’s word.” (p.31)

“Luther had no illusions about being an Enoch or Elijah returned from the grave…. What counted for Luther- and what linked him in his own mind with Elijah- was the Word of God in their mouths. He was firmly convinced that his tongue and pen proclaimed the same Word of God which Elijah proclaimed. Only because of this could he place himself in the ranks of prophets and apostles. Thus, much of the medieval notion of the prophet was not of importance for Luther. He claimed to possess no special gift beyond the Word which had been present in the mouths of the biblical prophets. His estimate of himself, as constructive promoter of the gospel or as destructive critic of false teaching, was only and only connected with the Word of God.” (p.31-32).
Oh, man. At least my long term memory is sort of working. :)

Thank you for the reply. I was thinking of a years long discussion in which Luther was the most evil guy and responsible for everything conceivably bad in the world and then some.

The discussion was so long ago it might be old enough to drink in all fifty states.
 
Top