Why Luther rejected James- it refuted his faith alone doctrine

BJ Bear said:
I should have provided more detail. It was a laugh at the incompetence and error of Augustine with regard to the topic of the thread and the willingness of others to blindly follow him in those errors.
Click to expand...
(y)
BJ Bear said:
The cat out of the bag is the necessarily three sided disagreement on justification between the Evangelicals, the Catholics, and the Reformed.
Click to expand...
(y)
BJ Bear said:
As a newbie some older friends+ who were Catholic were excited to hear that I was visiting churches and investigating Christianity. They congratulated me until they heard I was thinking about hanging out with the Lutherans.
Click to expand...
I would love to hear your thoughts on early Christianity!
BJ Bear said:
They were also the only ones who told me you can't know what Scripture means until you know what Scripture actually says.
Click to expand...
Does that not come down to one's own personal, fallible, interpretations BJ?
BJ Bear said:
If that is not an equivocation on terms like one church, one faith, etc., then the claim of the Roman Catholic church, and that of the other pretenders,
Click to expand...
Is it your belief that the Catholic Church has always been a pretender?

Thanks BJ!
 
BJ Bear said:
Peter and Paul did not establish or found the one church of the one God at Rome. That occurred more than a century before the LORD was incarnate when a delegation from Israel brought the one faith of the one Lord God to Rome. It was supplemented by anonymous Christians (A change in language doesn't signal a change in faith.) traveling to and from Rome during the passion of the Christ.

Paul later wrote of the common faith to an established assembly of the saints at Rome with no reference or allusion to Peter.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with that BJ. Who would keep Paul from coming to Rome?
 
Last edited:
Bonnie said:
The same thing happens on the Catholic board. We non-Catholics refute what they write using Scripture. But the Catholics cannot back up their false teachings using Scripture, but must resort to quoting the ECFs, or their CCC.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting affect of evangelizing gentiles that in sharing the faith using aspects of their philosophical view as a touchstone that those aspects would later became codified as part of the tradition of some segments of the Christian church. Interesting but not surprising considering the circumstances of that day of Scripture not being readily available, or at all depending on the language being spoken. Oral tradition had a much greater role.

However, the time to begin to right the doctrinal ship according to the recognized word of God is long past. Christians everywhere should be thankful that Jesus came to save sinners. Alleluia!
Bonnie said:
Some also tell lies about Luther, since the truth makes them look bad. They claim he left their church to start his own church, which is totally false. He was excommunicated for refusing to reject the truth he found in the Bible, and refusing to blindly follow the pope and his minions in their error, and kowtow to their authority. That took great courage, to face the most powerful man on earth at that time, but he did, and lived to tell about it, unlike Hus.
Click to expand...
The LORD was certainly active in arranging and producing the reassertion of the person and work of Christ for all men through His servants beginning at Wittenberg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
Arch Stanton said:
(y)

(y)

I would love to hear your thoughts on early Christianity!
Click to expand...
Since Christian history begins and ends with the person and work of Christ for all men what Scripture says is axiomatic. Early Christian history then begins with Genesis 1:1. That is the witness of Scripture, for example, the witness of Moses, John and Paul. Paul's literalistic reference to the creation through Jesus in 1 Cor 8 should satisfy the most strident literalist in this regard.

If you are asking about the time of the passion going forward then the Scriptural witness is still the gold standard, especially when it comes to doctrine or the faith once delivered to the saints, the true Apostolic succession.

For the later historical extra biblical record of how Christians went about their business I rely on the same standard sources as everyone else, but the political claims and story telling remain nothing but political claims and story telling.

Arch Stanton said:
Does that not come down to one's own personal, fallible, interpretations BJ?
Click to expand...
No it does not because the marks on the page are the marks on the page. People may disagree on the interpretations of the translators, but the texts from which they are translating are substantively the same. Knowing what Scripture says isn't always the same as knowing what Scripture means.

The Evangelical claim is that Scripture is clear regarding the person and work of Christ for all men, for you.
Arch Stanton said:
Is it your belief that the Catholic Church has always been a pretender?
Click to expand...
Since you didn't define when and where the Catholic Church started then based on the current claims of the Catholic Church, unless it was dropped from the sky by aliens from another galaxy, it has not always been the Catholic Church. The first saints at Rome received the common faith, the faith of the Prophets and Apostles, rather than assert a different later philosophically distorted Catholic/Orthodox faith.

Peace.
 
Nic said:
My tiny remark to this would be as memory serves, the churches in Rome were already established before either of the two you mentioned may have arrived.
Click to expand...
You are correct. There was already a well-established church in Rome by the time Peter and Paul arrived. It would most likely have already had an overseer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
BJ Bear said:
Since Christian history begins and ends with the person and work of Christ for all men what Scripture says is axiomatic. Early Christian history then begins with Genesis 1:1. That is the witness of Scripture, for example, the witness of Moses, John and Paul. Paul's literalistic reference to the creation through Jesus in 1 Cor 8 should satisfy the most strident literalist in this regard.

If you are asking about the time of the passion going forward then the Scriptural witness is still the gold standard, especially when it comes to doctrine or the faith once delivered to the saints, the true Apostolic succession.

For the later historical extra biblical record of how Christians went about their business I rely on the same standard sources as everyone else, but the political claims and story telling remain nothing but political claims and story telling.


No it does not because the marks on the page are the marks on the page. People may disagree on the interpretations of the translators, but the texts from which they are translating are substantively the same. Knowing what Scripture says isn't always the same as knowing what Scripture means.

The Evangelical claim is that Scripture is clear regarding the person and work of Christ for all men, for you.

Since you didn't define when and where the Catholic Church started then based on the current claims of the Catholic Church, unless it was dropped from the sky by aliens from another galaxy, it has not always been the Catholic Church. The first saints at Rome received the common faith, the faith of the Prophets and Apostles, rather than assert a different later philosophically distorted Catholic/Orthodox faith.

Peace.
Click to expand...
On the Catholic board, Catholics like to boast that Jesus founded the Catholic Church, but that is false. The 1st century church never taught or believed in the man-made doctrines that they believe in today, and have for many centuries. The 4 Marian Dogmas are relatively late comers, but millions of people were able to be saved to eternal life by grace through faith in Jesus Christ since the first century, without knowing anything about those dogmas, or having to believe them. Which means they are man-made and unnecessary for salvation.
 
Arch Stanton said:
One faith from the 1st century onward does not allow dissention, only obedience.
Click to expand...
A person can't really dismiss the difference between what Scripture says and what the Roman Catholic Church itself asserts with a wave of the hand reply.

For example, the Apostle Paul was referencing Moses and the commandment when he wrote of concupiscence and sin, yet the RCC says in it's latest Catechism that it has never understood it to be so.

This denial of Moses and Paul by the RCC is a denial of the one faith of the one Lord God proclaimed by His Prophets and Apostles, proclaimed by the church which is the pillar and ground of truth.
 
BJ Bear said:
The mustard seed of philosophy is alien to the catholic faith but it is a parasite on the Roman Catholic faith and that of other like minded folks.
Click to expand...
Didn't Luther say something to the effect that human reason was a whore, when it came to understanding the Bible? I forget the exact quote.
 
Bonnie said:
Didn't Luther say something to the effect that human reason was a whore, when it came to understanding the Bible? I forget the exact quote.
Click to expand...
Yes, when it is misused, used as an authority over Scripture rather than as a servant to distinguish between nouns and verbs, etc.
 
Arch Stanton said:
I would disagree with that BJ.
Click to expand...
Why would you disagree if there is no biblical evidence of Peter going to Rome before Paul wrote the the Epistle To The Romans?

It takes a Gentile non-Berean way of reading Scripture to imagine that there is any Scriptural evidence of Peter being in Rome at all.
Arch Stanton said:
Who would keep Paul from coming to Rome?
Click to expand...
God. He had Paul working elsewhere, and by Paul's own declaration his stop in Rome would only be incidental to his journey to Spain.

“24. Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company. 25. But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. 26. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. 27. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. 28. When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.” (Rom 15:24-28, KJVA)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top