Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bonnie

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Josheb View Post
    The hands of my physical body are holding my physical body for you to eat and drink.
    The hands of my physical body are holding a different physical body of mine for you to eat and drink.
    The hands of my physical body are holding a different physical body of mine that the hands of my physical body can distribute from my physical body for you to eat and drink.

    Can you see how illogical that is?
    this is from Luther's sermon that you quoted a couple of threads ago. You'd do well to read it again and consider Abraham's actions.

    "It was also a foolish command God gave to Abraham, to slay his son, Genesis 22:2. For if reason had been the judge in this, both it and all mankind would have come to no other conclusion than this: It is an unfriendly and hostile command, how can it be from God, since God himself said to Abraham that he would multiply his seed through this son, and it would become as innumerable as the stars of the firmament and as the sand by the sea. Therefore it was a foolish commandment, a grievous, hard and unbearable commandment. But what did Abraham do? He closes his senses, takes his reason captive, and obeys the voice of God, goes, and does as God commanded him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dropkick View Post
      this is from Luther's sermon that you quoted a couple of threads ago. You'd do well to read it again and consider Abraham's actions.

      "It was also a foolish command God gave to Abraham, to slay his son, Genesis 22:2. For if reason had been the judge in this, both it and all mankind would have come to no other conclusion than this: It is an unfriendly and hostile command, how can it be from God, since God himself said to Abraham that he would multiply his seed through this son, and it would become as innumerable as the stars of the firmament and as the sand by the sea. Therefore it was a foolish commandment, a grievous, hard and unbearable commandment. But what did Abraham do? He closes his senses, takes his reason captive, and obeys the voice of God, goes, and does as God commanded him.
      Nice try, but Luther is not saying all Christians should abandon all reason in all circumstances.

      He's simply talking about God's call of Abraham and faith's relevance thereof. You would do well to read that sermon again. This same Luther that I quoted and you imagine you can leverage against others also stated quite plainly, "It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist." In his critique of the RCC's sacraments titled, "On the Babylon Captivity of the Church," he wrote,
      "Therefore, it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand 'bread' to mean 'the form, or accidents of bread', and 'wine' to mean 'the form, or accidents of wine'. Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning.

      Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation – certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea – until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years...."
      Luther used reason. Nothing he ever wrote about the senses or reason of a Christian should be construed to say Luther wholesale rejected either.





      All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

      “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

        How? In what way? The Lutherans are a denomination which came about centuries following the first century church. What heavenly event gave them authority to form another denomination?
        Luther did not form a new denomination. The Roman Catholic church was doing something wrong. They were selling salvation. Luther tried to correct them. The Pope refused to do that, he cast Luther from the Roman Catholic church. We are the correct Catholic denomination.

        The Orthodox church did the same thing back in the 11th century. It is why they are separate from the Roman Catholic Church.
        Mark 9:24 Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

        “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things,
        but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ― Martin Luther


        Muretus "Call no man worthless for whom Christ died!"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Thekla View Post
          Luther did not form a new denomination. The Roman Catholic church was doing something wrong. They were selling salvation. Luther tried to correct them. The Pope refused to do that, he cast Luther from the Roman Catholic church. We are the correct Catholic denomination.

          The Orthodox church did the same thing back in the 11th century. It is why they are separate from the Roman Catholic Church.
          If you are claiming they were wrong--and you have the right one--then there was an apostasy--period. Your denomination came centuries later.

          Again--who gave them the authority to start another denomination--and declare what was had at that time--was wrong? How does that differ from the hundreds of denominations which claim the same thing?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Josheb View Post

            Luther used reason. Nothing he ever wrote about the senses or reason of a Christian should be construed to say Luther wholesale rejected either.




            What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

            It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.


            http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#sacrament


            Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.

            http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#sacrament

            Luther always affirmed the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar. He never put human reason above scripture like evangelicals do nowadays.

            The below is also quoted from the piece you cite.


            "But, not to philosophize too far, does not Christ appear to have met these curious enquiries in a striking manner, when He said concerning the wine, not, “Hoc est sanguis meus,” but “Hic est sanguis meus.” He speaks much more clearly still when He brings in the mention of the cup, saying: “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.”Does He not seem to have meant to keep us within the bounds of simple faith, just so far as to believe that His blood is in the cup? If, for my part, I cannot understand how the bread can be the body of Christ, I will bring my understanding into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and firmly believe, in simple adherence to His word, not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ. For so shall I be kept safe by his words, where it is said: “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and said, Take, eat, this (that is, this bread, which He had taken and broken) is my body.” Paul also says: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” He does not say that the communion is in the bread, but that the bread itself is the communion of the body of Christ. What if philosophy does not understand these things? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does it even understand the transubstantiation which these men speak of, seeing that they themselves confess that all philosophy breaks down on this point? The reason why, in the Greek and Latin, the pronoun this is referred to the body, is that the genders are alike; but in the Hebrew, 161where there is no neuter gender, it is referred to the bread; so that we might properly say: “This (bread) is my body.” Both the usage of language and common sense prove that the subject points to the bread, and not to the body, when He says, Hoc est corpus meum, that is, this bread is my body."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

              If you are claiming they were wrong--and you have the right one--then there was an apostasy--period. Your denomination came centuries later.

              Again--who gave them the authority to start another denomination--and declare what was had at that time--was wrong? How does that differ from the hundreds of denominations which claim the same thing?
              They were not totally wrong. Like the Orthodox we believe that they were wrong in giving the Pope so much authority. If you look at them now, it is even worse than it was then. Luther saw that it was wrong to sell forgiveness. That did not go back to the beginning of the church. We have kept the things that were believed and correct. The Roman's have followed the Pope, not the scriptures.
              Mark 9:24 Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

              “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things,
              but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ― Martin Luther


              Muretus "Call no man worthless for whom Christ died!"

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Thekla View Post
                They were not totally wrong. Like the Orthodox we believe that they were wrong in giving the Pope so much authority. If you look at them now, it is even worse than it was then. Luther saw that it was wrong to sell forgiveness. That did not go back to the beginning of the church. We have kept the things that were believed and correct. The Roman's have followed the Pope, not the scriptures.
                If one were to tell it all--there isn't a lot of similarity between the salvational theology of the Catholics--and the Lutherans. They are at odds with one another, IMO.

                My question is--who authorized those who formed the Lutheran church--to form a new denomination?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

                  If one were to tell it all--there isn't a lot of similarity between the salvational theology of the Catholics--and the Lutherans. They are at odds with one another, IMO.

                  My question is--who authorized those who formed the Lutheran church--to form a new denomination?
                  We did not form a new denomination. The Pope kicked us out of his Kingship. We remained the correct denomination.

                  It is you also who is wrong.
                  Mark 9:24 Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

                  “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things,
                  but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ― Martin Luther


                  Muretus "Call no man worthless for whom Christ died!"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Thekla View Post

                    They were not totally wrong. Like the Orthodox we believe that they were wrong in giving the Pope so much authority. If you look at them now, it is even worse than it was then. Luther saw that it was wrong to sell forgiveness. That did not go back to the beginning of the church. We have kept the things that were believed and correct. The Roman's have followed the Pope, not the scriptures.
                    When you say it’s wrong “to sell forgiveness”, some examples please?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Faith1960 View Post

                      When you say it’s wrong “to sell forgiveness”, some examples please?
                      I think she means indulgences. But she can correct me if I am wrong.
                      "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                      "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                      “It’s easy to fool a man, but nearly impossible to convince him he's been fooled. --Mark Twain."
                      "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                      "If the truth hurts--then it is working."--anonymous

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dropkick View Post
                        What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

                        It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

                        [link]


                        Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.

                        [link]

                        Luther always affirmed the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar. He never put human reason above scripture like evangelicals do nowadays.

                        The below is also quoted from the piece you cite.


                        "But, not to philosophize too far, does not Christ appear to have met these curious enquiries in a striking manner, when He said concerning the wine, not, “Hoc est sanguis meus,” but “Hic est sanguis meus.” He speaks much more clearly still when He brings in the mention of the cup, saying: “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.”Does He not seem to have meant to keep us within the bounds of simple faith, just so far as to believe that His blood is in the cup? If, for my part, I cannot understand how the bread can be the body of Christ, I will bring my understanding into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and firmly believe, in simple adherence to His word, not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ. For so shall I be kept safe by his words, where it is said: “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and said, Take, eat, this (that is, this bread, which He had taken and broken) is my body.” Paul also says: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” He does not say that the communion is in the bread, but that the bread itself is the communion of the body of Christ. What if philosophy does not understand these things? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does it even understand the transubstantiation which these men speak of, seeing that they themselves confess that all philosophy breaks down on this point? The reason why, in the Greek and Latin, the pronoun this is referred to the body, is that the genders are alike; but in the Hebrew, 161where there is no neuter gender, it is referred to the bread; so that we might properly say: “This (bread) is my body.” Both the usage of language and common sense prove that the subject points to the bread, and not to the body, when He says, Hoc est corpus meum, that is, this bread is my body."
                        Entirely immaterial.

                        Everyone's time is being wasted with some unstated op-irrelevant agenda.

                        This op specifically and explicitly asks how is it Lutheran pastors have any authority to change the bread and wine. No one is disputing the Lutheran's view about presence of Christ, this op is not yours to hijack for the sake of irrelevant evangelical-negging, and I am most certainly not interested in collaborating with such an attempt. Yes, Luther did say Christ was present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper ritual, nothing I posted says otherwise nor should it be construed to say otherwise, but he also dissented from the RCC view of transubstantiation. The two views of Luther are not contradictory, they are not mutually exclusive of one another, no one is stating, implying, or insinuating otherwise...... and you're off-topic.

                        No one is saying Luther "put human reason above scripture," either.

                        This op isn't about evangelicals, or their views on Luther's views or the RCC's views on the bread and wine, either.

                        Your entire contribution to this discussion is a series of non sequiturs and red herrings. Try sticking to the op-topic and its specific inquiry and what is actually posted and not what is imagined to have been posted.






                        Please stop wasting everyone's time.
                        All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

                        “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Faith1960 View Post

                          When you say it’s wrong “to sell forgiveness”, some examples please?
                          Bonnie is correct when she said I was talking about indulgences. But isn't that what selling indulgences does, forgive your sins?
                          Mark 9:24 Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

                          “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things,
                          but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” ― Martin Luther


                          Muretus "Call no man worthless for whom Christ died!"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Thekla View Post
                            But isn't that what selling indulgences does, forgive your sins?
                            It is a reduction in the amount of punishment one must suffer for sins committed.
                            All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

                            “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Josheb View Post
                              Entirely immaterial.

                              Everyone's time is being wasted with some unstated op-irrelevant agenda.

                              This op specifically and explicitly asks how is it Lutheran pastors have any authority to change the bread and wine. No one is disputing the Lutheran's view about presence of Christ, this op is not yours to hijack for the sake of irrelevant evangelical-negging, and I am most certainly not interested in collaborating with such an attempt. Yes, Luther did say Christ was present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper ritual, nothing I posted says otherwise nor should it be construed to say otherwise, but he also dissented from the RCC view of transubstantiation. The two views of Luther are not contradictory, they are not mutually exclusive of one another, no one is stating, implying, or insinuating otherwise...... and you're off-topic.

                              No one is saying Luther "put human reason above scripture," either.

                              This op isn't about evangelicals, or their views on Luther's views or the RCC's views on the bread and wine, either.

                              Your entire contribution to this discussion is a series of non sequiturs and red herrings. Try sticking to the op-topic and its specific inquiry and what is actually posted and not what is imagined to have been posted.






                              Please stop wasting everyone's time.
                              Whatever dude.

                              You denied the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar, putting your reason above scripture. I defended the sacrament using Luther to show, contrary to what you quoted from Luther, that he never denied the presence of Christ in the sacrament.

                              You seem to have a habit of getting your panties in a wad whenever someone calls out you bogus doctrine.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Thekla View Post

                                Bonnie is correct when she said I was talking about indulgences. But isn't that what selling indulgences does, forgive your sins?
                                How do they sell indulgences? Examples?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X