In fairness to Luther, being adversarial towards Jews (and vice versa) was no new thing, they actively argued back and forth.
Early Church Fathers homilies against the Jews
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Martin Luther/Adolf Hitler
- Thread starter Wesley Briggman
- Start date
In fairness to Luther, being adversarial towards Jews (and vice versa) was no new thing, they actively argued back and forth.
Early Church Fathers homilies against the Jews
Yes. The Reformers went too far by adding one little itsy-bitsy word to the gospel, "alone".
The promise doesn’t apply to 200 or 300 heads of churches gathered in His Name?
The Bible always needs an authoritive interpreter, it’s not self interpreting. Hence the conflicted mess of Bible alone theologies.
That’s right. Twisting the scripture was not enough, they had to add to it to justify their new doctrine.
Please share specific Catholic doctrine that the reformers reformed. I thought the Catholic's threw the reformers out along with their reforms.
The Lord Jesus doesn't say so. The majority is rarely correct in Scripture (1 KIngs 22:12-14).
'The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits [i.e. individual thinkers] can be no ther than Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered up by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.
[Matt. 22:29-32; Eph. 2:20; Acts 15:15-17; 28:23]
1689 Baptist Confession of Faith 1:10
Blank
Active Member
That still doesn't explain why Luther spoke well of the Jews in his early writings, since, (and I agree), antisemitism was widespread in the Early Church.
Blank
Active Member
The conservative Evangelicals cried "foul" in the early '90s over the compromised ECT Statement dropping the term 'alone'.
IOW, what would you like to add to saving faith?
Romans 5:19 (KJV) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
3 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8
James Chapter 2
24 | Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. |
Last edited:
Gosh! How many do you want? In no particular order:
Doctrine of the Mass
Penances
Pilgrimages
Indulgences
Baptismal Regeneration
Auricular confession to a priest
Equal Authority of Tradition to Scripture
Seven sacraments
Authority of the 'pope.'
Celibacy of priests
I'm sure there are plenty more, but those will do to be going on with.
If you mean that the Church of Rome rejected the Reformers and burned as many of them as they could, you are correct.
You haven't said which works yet. Come on! Which works must a man do to be justified by faith (John 6:28-29)?
Last edited:
Blank
Active Member
In the context of Romans chps. 1-3, there are none that do good.
Romans 3:12 (KJV) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
all true.
In order to make scripture not contradict scripture we need to consider the context of James.
When was Abraham first justified (declared righteous)? Gen 15:6
Genesis 15:6 NASB
Then he believed in the Lord; and He credited it to him as righteousness.
That was long before he offered Isaac (James 2:21)
James 2:21 NASB
Was our father Abraham not justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
So we can't pit James against Paul, due to time period/context, otherwise we would have scripture contradicting scripture, And we know that can't be because God doesn't lie.
Last edited:
Exactly right! Rom. 3:19-20. 'Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Right again! I think there is a better way to translate James 2:18-19, bearing in mind that there is no punctuation in ancient Greek manuscripts.
'Someone will say, "Do you have faith?" I have works! Show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by what I do.' (NIV) Works do not play any part in justification, but always follow saving faith (Eph. 2:8-10).
I was totally ignorant of the impact that the reformers had on RCC doctrine. Thanks for the info.
I would like to find a source that contrasts the "before and after" text of any one of these RCC doctrines.
Faith working through Love as Paul says.
Not just intellectual assent, or just trust, but works of love.
The works a man must do is love, no love, no salvation.
James is a response to people’s misunderstanding of Paul that Peter talks about.
You can have all the trust in God to move mountains and perform wonders, but if don’t have works of love, you are nothing.
The greatest sign of a living saving Faith is the works of Love.
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”
It’s not enough to hear his words and intellectually assent to them, no, you must do what they teach, which to love, and in loving you will fulfil the entire command of God.
How do you know anyone truly believes what you tell them? Their works, their actions.
In exploration 4x4 training I taught people to slow down and roll at a steady pace through water puddles on dirt tracks.
One young bloke I taught the next day had a big accident and put the vehicle on its side, and a fence post went through his side window nearly killing him.
He lost control of his vehicle because he hit a water puddle at high speed. He tried to tell me that he did slow down and roll through the puddle.
I asked him why the hood, windscreen and roof was covered in mud, and the engine bay was full of mud.
How do I know he didn’t believe what I taught and how dangerous it was to not do what I taught. His actions his works.
How do we and God know true Christians?
A: by their intellectual assent.
B: by their confidence in their salvation.
C: by their works of Love.
I know I have met a true Christian by their love, they must truly believe what they were taught, that’s how God knows a true believer of his.
Love is doing, not feeling, God is Love the constant work of beneficent doing and action.
Last edited:
This is why the Judgement scene was set before us in scripture.
People were judged by their love or lack of it.
Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned is the works of love.
Not doing these things is the opposite of love, indifference.
Unless your faith works through Love, then it’s not a saving faith.
People were judged by their love or lack of it.
Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned is the works of love.
Not doing these things is the opposite of love, indifference.
Unless your faith works through Love, then it’s not a saving faith.
Christforums
Active Member
In contrast to Tradition? Offices? Commentators?
I wrote a little mini page on this topic after reading this thread. I was reminded of tradition but didn't dive deeply into Sola Scriptura. However, perhaps my next pager will be on the topic of Sola Scriptura: Traditions are not the problem - The school of Isaiah
The Westminster Confession of Faith really does an outstanding job of defining Sola Scriptura: The Westminster Confession
Curious whether anybody objects? Especially considering the WCF was written for the Baptist, but the London Baptist Confession was instead decided for the Baptist. Interesting history nonetheless.
Last edited:
He is not telling you the truth. I’ll do an outline for you.
Christforums
Active Member
Just emphasizing the Reformers never set out to destroy the Church but rather realign to scriptural principles which were practiced in the early church, for example, Reformers and the universal catholic church today confess the early ecumenical creeds. I tend to view the church as a single tree, which expands the Covenantal divide between Old and New Testaments. Sometimes the tree branches out and in the case of the Catholics vs Protestants the trunk split. What's your flavor, Apostolic Succession (Catholic) or Apostolic Doctrine (Protestant)?
Oftentimes when engaging Catholics I am reminded that we use similar terminology in theology w/ quite different definitions. Catholics owe a lot to early Reformers, without sermons might be still expressed in Latin as well the Scriptures rather than in our Native tongue. Martin Luther was among the early Reformers (not the first) but perhaps among the most controversial. Among the most controversial was William Tyndale.