NOT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURES.

balshan

Well-known member
So handle:
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

I imagine you'll do the old lie: "that was for THEM, but NOT FOR US!!!"
Or Bob the lie they are not forbidden to marry, it is their choice not to marry.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
What makes you think he felt "threatened"? It has no gospel in it. And the Gospel meant everything to Luther. Unlike in your church. But James is in our German Bible.
It has no Gospel in it? No Gospel!!!??? Who are you to sit in judgement of the Bible?

Seems to me if the book is that which is Theopnesutos, by definition, the book contains or otherwise preaches the Gospel in some form. Why would God inspire a book otherwise?

See--the whole problem is that Marty Luther arbitrarily decided that the "Gospel" and "Justification by Faith alone" were synonymous. Thus, any book that did not teach Justification by Faith alone, by definition, had nothing of the Gospel in it.

So, Marty Luther decided that Scripture teaches Justification by Faith alone, and he used that to prove the Scriptures. Thus, Luther used the Scriptures to prove Justification by Faith alone, then used Justification by Faith alone to prove the Scriptures.

Either way, James is no less Theopneustos than Romans. And who says we should not use James to understand Romans? Who says we have to use Romans to understand James?

Why can't you just admit we are justified by Grace alone through Faith and works? Wouldn't that be easier than having to come up with complicated exegesis? Shouldn't the simplest explanation be preferred?
He did. Still no gospel in it. But I duly note the contemptuous "Marty."
You noted the contemptuous "Marty" ----and "duly" did you?

Thanks for the note--and "duly" Captain Obvious, Seargent Self Explanatory, General Unmistakable, Cornel Clear as Day!
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
And who says we should not use James to understand Romans?
Chuckle!!! The "Magisterium" of course!!! Same place we get the "Blessed Virgin" Fantasy, Paedobaptism to remove "original SIN", satan's own "Purgatorial Sanctification" and a host of other utter religious nonsense!!!

ALl you seem to be aware of is "James" - but there's the rest of the Bible that indicates the TRUTH of Luther (and many others at the time, that Salvation is BY FAITH, and THAT not of yourselves - it's God's GIFT.

But Go ahead and keep teaching "Salvation by WORKS" - you won't enjoy what that does for you, y'all.
 

Misfit

Well-known member
Why would Jesus need to do any testing?
He wouldn't and that is what I said.
My point was when anyone says they speak for God, in authority, we must test what they are telling us s
Okay. I don't see the need myself, but if that is what you want to do you have that right.
not a self-appointed institution,
The Catholic Church is not a self-appointed institution if that is what you mean.

Nothing else. No traditions. No extra-Biblical ideologies and musings for Scripture is the ultimate authority until Jesus returns.
I disagree with you here. I am not a Sola Scriptura adherent.

To deny the trinity is to deny Jesus' deity.
Exactly. We are both on the same page here.
Do we owe these men our gratitude for listening to the Holy Spirit and being used by Him?
I wouldn't use the word "gratitude" myself. They were the leaders of the newly emerging Christian Church, and they just did what they did. Someone had to decide things, to lead the Church into the future, and they were the ones.

We have many differences my friend. And yes, communion being one of them. I know of no Scripture that states the bread and wine is transubstantiated into His body and His blood. A new (1215AD) teaching of the RCC and part of your "evolving Christian church" claim I would presume. Correct me if I am wrong.
1 Cor 11:26-27 …26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

If the Eucharist is not the body and blood of the Lord as you see it, then why would eating the bread and drinking from the cup in an unworthy manner make one guilty of "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord"? That would make absolutely no sense at all. We take those words seriously and that is what orthodox Christianity has taught about the Eucharist for over 1500 years and up till this very day. It was only after that point (1500 years) with the arrival of the "reformers" that the orthodox belief on this was jettisoned in favor of the purely symbolic idea. Sorry, but I am not buying that particular concept.

As far as "transubstantiation", that is simply a word used by the Catholic Church to explain what happens to the elements (bread and wine) at the consecration when they become the body and blood of our Lord. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers simply calls what happens at the consecration "a mystery". I am good with either explanation.
 

mica

Well-known member
...
1 Cor 11:26-27 …26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

If the Eucharist is not the body and blood of the Lord as you see it, then why would eating the bread and drinking from the cup in an unworthy manner make one guilty of "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord"? That would make absolutely no sense at all.
yes it does, if you know why Paul says that. what do verses 17-22 say about it?

We take those words seriously and that is what orthodox Christianity has taught about the Eucharist for over 1500 years and up till this very day. It was only after that point (1500 years) with the arrival of the "reformers" that the orthodox belief on this was jettisoned in favor of the purely symbolic idea. Sorry, but I am not buying that particular concept.
no, catholics don't. what the rcc teaches is not Christianity, it's catholicism.

As far as "transubstantiation", that is simply a word used by the Catholic Church to explain what happens to the elements (bread and wine) at the consecration when they become the body and blood of our Lord. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers simply calls what happens at the consecration "a mystery". I am good with either explanation.
that doesn't literally happen. then your EO 'brothers' are just as deceived as RCs are.

your posts support that you are 'good' with false teachings of the rcc, instead of
the truth of God's word.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
FWIW,
"The Second Lateran Council (1139) made the promise to remain celibate a prerequisite to ordination, abolishing the married priesthood in the Latin Church."

Google ("married popes")

--Rich

...
I seem to remember that the remaining married priests had to divorce their wives to remain priests, but I have not been able to find that much about this online. Do you know something about this?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
It has no Gospel in it? No Gospel!!!??? Who are you to sit in judgement of the Bible?

No judgment, just an observation, which happens to be factual. I have read that book and we studied it in adult Bible class some years ago. James does not talk much about the Gospel, though he does hint of it, like in James 1:18 and where he talks about the "royal law of love."
Seems to me if the book is that which is Theopnesutos, by definition, the book contains or otherwise preaches the Gospel in some form. Why would God inspire a book otherwise?

James is about putting true faith into practice, and condemning favoritism. Maybe that is why God inspired James to write it.
See--the whole problem is that Marty Luther arbitrarily decided that the "Gospel" and "Justification by Faith alone" were synonymous. Thus, any book that did not teach Justification by Faith alone, by definition, had nothing of the Gospel in it.

No, "Marty"--again, the contemptuous diminutive is noted--read the Bible without RCC "glasses" on and discovered the true Gospel of Jesus Christ in Romans--that we are justified, declared righteous, on account of our faith in Christ Jesus our Lord. That we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, so no one may boast. That salvation is all God's doing and none of our own. That it is the free gift of God. THAT IS the Gospel message throughout the NT.
So, Marty Luther decided that Scripture teaches Justification by Faith alone, and he used that to prove the Scriptures. Thus, Luther used the Scriptures to prove Justification by Faith alone, then used Justification by Faith alone to prove the Scriptures.

Scripture does teach justification by Faith alone through grace alone, in Christ Jesus our Lord. Paul wrote extensively about that. So did Peter in Acts 15, when he said that God had cleansed the Gentiles' hearts "by faith."
Either way, James is no less Theopneustos than Romans. And who says we should not use James to understand Romans? Who says we have to use Romans to understand James?

James was an "antilegomena" book--one spoken against--since the early church. I think such books should be judged in light of the ones that were NOT "spoken against"--like Romans. But James, when understood correctly, does not contradict Romans. Catholics don't understand it correctly.
Why can't you just admit we are justified by Grace alone through Faith and works?

Because that isn't what the entire NT teaches us. Paul writes "and "NOT BY WORKS" in Eph. 2:9. Why can't you admit THAT?
Wouldn't that be easier than having to come up with complicated exegesis? Shouldn't the simplest explanation be preferred?

The simplest answer IS all throughout the NT--that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and not by our works. But good works done in faith vindicate our faith before others, who cannot see into our hearts as Jesus can. Those good works are the outcome of a true and LIVING faith. But who is it who enables us to DO those good deeds and walk in them? Eph. 2:10 tells us.
You noted the contemptuous "Marty" ----and "duly" did you?

Yes. Because that is the only reason it was used--to show contempt for him.
Thanks for the note--and "duly" Captain Obvious, Seargent Self Explanatory, General Unmistakable, Cornel Clear as Day!
Sure thing. But can't disprove what Luther found in the Bible, so, use "Marty" to show contempt for him, which I find rather childish.
 
Last edited:

RiJoRi

Well-known member
I seem to remember that the remaining married priests had to divorce their wives to remain priests, but I have not been able to find that much about this online. Do you know something about this?
I'm not that old! 😁 But it would not surprise me. 😕

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
Ummmm--your appeal to Tradition is duly noted here. And--if you were Catholic, you might have a point. But you aren't Catholic, you are Lutheran. That means--you aren't allowed to appeal to Tradition as you do here.

In the second place, where does the Bible teach that "such books should be judged in light of the ones that were NOT 'spoken against' like Romans?" Please cite chapter and verse.

I do admit that we are not saved by Jewish works of the law, such as circumcision, etc. The Jewish laws are no longer in effect. That does not entail we no longer have to follow the moral law.

I also admit that the initial Grace of Justification comes by Grace through Faith alone. The question is--what happens after we are given Faith.

Since Jesus and Jesus alone is the judge, what difference does it make what others think? The only person we need to prove our Faith to is Jesus. What difference does it make if we can "vindicate" our Faith before others?

Right. And because those works are the product of Faith, they are saving.

Jesus!

As I said--you are a real Captain Obvious you are! Sargent Self Explanatory! Colonel Clear as Day! General Unmistakable!

Of COURSE it was to show contempt for Luther! Luther was an arrogant, blustery know-it-all---who didn't know much of anything.
Ummmm--your appeal to Tradition is duly noted here. And--if you were Catholic, you might have a point. But you aren't Catholic, you are Lutheran. That means--you aren't allowed to appeal to Tradition as you do here.

First, i don't think youre allowed to moderate the boards. So telling another person they aren't allowed to do this or that isn't your job.

Secondly, when we talk about the rc tradition its your sacred tradition, not tradition in general. So ya, we can talk about either whenever we please. But talking about history or tradition is fair game regardless.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
He wouldn't and that is what I said.

Okay. I don't see the need myself, but if that is what you want to do you have that right.

My comment was a premise to the rest of that paragraph which included several Biblical references to qualify my statement. IOW, depending on Scripture to test my opine. With all due respect it seems you are deflecting because of your not feeling the need to test what others tell you, even your own church and their leadership. That is decidedly unbiblical.

Why would Jesus need to do any testing? He is the author and perfector of our faith, isn't He? My point was when anyone says they speak for God, in authority, we must test what they are telling us (1 Thes 5:21), even when they are doing great signs and wonders (Matt 24:24) because we are warned (Col 2:8) not to be taken captive by these false teachers. It is our own responsibility to insure we are following Jesus Christ, not a self-appointed institution, not a priest, a preacher, a pastor, an elder, a deacon, our parents, our spouses, friends, anyone. It is our duty. How do we do this? By testing what they tell us with Scripture. Nothing else. No traditions. No extra-Biblical ideologies and musings for Scripture is the ultimate authority until Jesus returns.

The Catholic Church is not a self-appointed institution if that is what you mean.

Yes, it is. The HRCC has declared IT is the only true representative of Christ on earth and remember as you advised in your first response to me, I would be wise to listen to it? If that's not self-appointing I don't know what is.

I disagree with you here. I am not a Sola Scriptura adherent.

A discussion for the SOLA forum right? This is the Catholic forum and my point was about Catholicism, not SOLA Scriptura.
Exactly. We are both on the same page here.

I wouldn't use the word "gratitude" myself. They were the leaders of the newly emerging Christian Church, and they just did what they did. Someone had to decide things, to lead the Church into the future, and they were the ones.

The Christian faith was not newly emerging. It was established with Christ's death on the cross, His resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. We know that because...the Bible tells us so. What was happening was heresies were creeping into what was already known in the body of Christ. We see that dealt with with Peter and the Judaizes (Gal 2: 11-21).


1 Cor 11:26-27 …26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

If the Eucharist is not the body and blood of the Lord as you see it, then why would eating the bread and drinking from the cup in an unworthy manner make one guilty of "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord"? That would make absolutely no sense at all. We take those words seriously and that is what orthodox Christianity has taught about the Eucharist for over 1500 years and up till this very day. It was only after that point (1500 years) with the arrival of the "reformers" that the orthodox belief on this was jettisoned in favor of the purely symbolic idea. Sorry, but I am not buying that particular concept.

Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). It is a sin to partake of communion in an unholy or disrespectful manner. This observance of Christs sacrifice, where He tells us to do this in remembrance of Him (1 Cor 11:24) is not eating His flesh and drinking His blood (transubstantiation), your wafer and wine are just that, wafer and wine. I know you will not give quarter on this dogma but out of love I want you to see you are believing a lie. Irrespective of your feelings when you take RCC communion. If feelings proved something the LDS would be right when they state they have a "burning of the bosom" when they pray whether the BoM is true or not.

As far as "transubstantiation", that is simply a word used by the Catholic Church to explain what happens to the elements (bread and wine) at the consecration when they become the body and blood of our Lord. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers simply calls what happens at the consecration "a mystery". I am good with either explanation.

It was established as a dogma at Trent to correct an error of Thomas Aquinas so it is much more then "simply a word". The claim of the RCC is this is a belief that the "church" has believed from its beginning which is not true. Another of those "evolving church" beliefs, right?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
KJV

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
RSVCE


Nothing else is needed.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Ummmm--your appeal to Tradition is duly noted here.

It is my opinion. But it makes sense. It did take much longer for the early church to accept James, 2 and 3rd John, et. al. as Scripture.
And--if you were Catholic, you might have a point. But you aren't Catholic, you are Lutheran. That means--you aren't allowed to appeal to Tradition as you do here.

See above.
In the second place, where does the Bible teach that "such books should be judged in light of the ones that were NOT 'spoken against' like Romans?" Please cite chapter and verse.

I never said there is anything like that in the Bible. I wrote "I think that such books...". Perhaps you need to clean off your glasses.
I do admit that we are not saved by Jewish works of the law, such as circumcision, etc. The Jewish laws are no longer in effect. That does not entail we no longer have to follow the moral law.

Of course we are to follow the moral law. But in Ephesians 2:8-10, in context, Paul is talking about GOOD works, not works of the Jewish Law of Moses. He also makes this plain in Titus where he writes "He saved us, NOT on the basis of works we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy..."

Works done in righteousness are good works, are they not?
I also admit that the initial Grace of Justification comes by Grace through Faith alone. The question is--what happens after we are given Faith.

A living faith leads to our wanting to do God's will and show love for others--not because we must, but because we want to.
Since Jesus and Jesus alone is the judge, what difference does it make what others think? The only person we need to prove our Faith to is Jesus. What difference does it make if we can "vindicate" our Faith before others?

If people see Jesus Christ in us, due to our good works done in love, then Jesus will be glorified and so will His Father in Heaven. They could also lead an unbeliever to Jesus Christ and salvation.
Right. And because those works are the product of Faith, they are saving.

False. Paul said "and NOT by works." Not, not, not. Works do not save us; they vindicate our faith, that it is genuine and living, plus they serve our neighbor.

Yes--HE enables us to walk in them. Doing good works in faith is all Jesus' doing. NOT ours.
As I said--you are a real Captain Obvious you are! Sargent Self Explanatory! Colonel Clear as Day! General Unmistakable!

Of COURSE it was to show contempt for Luther! Luther was an arrogant, blustery know-it-all---who didn't know much of anything.
Your last line is Catholic-ese for "Luther had the temerity to show that the Pope and Cardinals didn't know diddly-squat about the Gospel and Jesus Christ and Justification. And this Augustinian monk had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the powers of your church back then, to declare the truth from the Scriptures--even if it cost him his life, as it did Hus a hundred years before him. So, since Catholics cannot disprove what he taught from the Bible, the next best thing is to mock and denigrate him.

Thank you for proving this point.
 
Last edited:
Top