Featured Luther Was Error Free In Every Religious Doctrine

Yep, not one place in the Bible can you find your claims. People, not inspired by the Spirit of God, created a tradition from thin air.

This is irrelevant, however.

 

There would be no biblical evidence, but would be some in those RCC traditions of men

 

One basic false premise: Baptism is a sacrament. This is a false statement. The whole concept of baptism is skewed by this false teaching which is promulgated by Rome and Wittenburg. Throw in Geneva too. Millions of believers have died, refusing to baptize their infants--they also rejected the validity of infant baptism. The papists were incensed.

One could be baptized in every church on the planet and still be hell bound. Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

"I know what it says in the Bible, but thanks anyway.......

 

It is laughable, because I laughed. Ever think that Peter was saved, yet Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was blamed." Galatians 2:11. Just because one is saved, and has given their life to Christ doesn't mean their doctrine is infallible. That same Peter was dedicated to Jesus, yet Jesus addressed him as the adversary (Satan in KJV) when He said "Get thee behind me, Satan..." in Luke 4:8.

 

Millions have died! Hah! What nonsense! You need to understand that 'The Trail of Blood' has been debunked! So, I have asked and nobody want s to address it but I will present it again. None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice of infant baptism was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

 

[

I don't know who is worse, you or MennoSota. The Last Supper was the first Mass! Good grief, are you that ignorant? "Do this in memory of me" Jesus said, and that is what we do - every single Sunday. And it all goes back to that particular Passover, then taken up by the Apostles, and then continued on with every Christian congregation that came after them - until of course sometime after the 15th/16th century when some men thought they knew better and removed the altars from their churches and substituted pulpits instead. Jesus's memorial went right out the window with those folks.

 

Truer words were never written, but they will fail to convince the rejectionists of their false belief's.

 

EXACTLY! It is of no importance to them that EVERY ancient church that has ever been excavated has had an altar, Here is an interesting link:

The Ancient Mass in the"House Churches"was not as Informal as Many Think - Community in Mission

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More midnight research: Debunk this one please. "Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur." (the letter of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae duci" circa 1563 A.D.

Possible translation: "For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment." Translation by Dr. Carolinne White, PhD., Oxford Latin.

The trail of blood is clear--even if Carroll did not verify his bibliography. This does change the facts: there was a holocaust brought on the Anabaptists, etal. Hosius takes it back to the 4th century. Very interesting.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

You relegate your knowledge only to the church at Rome and then argue that silence makes the church at Rome correct. However, you have ZERO evidence in the Holy Scriptures. Instead you have to make up an allegory from thin air to force the Bible to fit your claims. Such biblical exegesis is shoddy.

You seem to worship the early Christians as though they could never be wrong in their Bible interpretation. Yet, those Christians were just as prone to errors and faulty opinions as you and I are today. Sometimes group think is wrong thinking. Sometimes you need a bold person (Hus, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wycliffe, etc.) who says "the king has no cloths."

In the issue of infant baptism..."the king has no cloths."

 

Do you celebrate the sedir meal exactly as Jesus and his disciples celebrated? Do you make sure their is no leaven in the house? Do you provide the bitter herbs? It seems the Roman church has failed to follow the prescribed supper as Jesus and his disciples followed it. Indeed, every gentile congregation fails to follow the pattern Jesus set for communion. Why did your church set-up such a faulty ceremony?

 

Silence is not a strong argument. It's the argument atheists use.

 

Well, my question didn't get answered. I'll leave with this: Martin Luther is my all time greatest hero. Few were used more to restore the Gospel in the West and end the domination and oppression of the Popes.

His sermons are powerful, full of grace and truth. He was right about the Jews with whom he was dealing, Galileo recanted and Relativity has equalized geocentric and heliocentric cosmological models, and Luther's cosmology was in line with the established science of his day.

Luther was indeed full of the Holy Ghost and mightily used by God.

 

We have that which is required, the wine which He says is His blood, and the unleavened bread which He says is His body. Jesus never claimed the bitter herbs to be anything that would need be included in His memorial.

 

Well good for you, we all should have heroes. I have heard though that in his later years Luther was greatly troubled by what he had unleashed and the direction in which things were going. People were even dissenting from him and the Body of Christ was being terribly torn asunder.

 

Not true. Holy Spirit indwelt believers err on doctrine every day.

 

But...you aren't following the tradition established in the supper. You have drastically modified the last supper to suit your own wishes. Even in Corinth they were celebrating with a meal. Do you have a meal at your church? It once was tradition. Why do you not follow tradition, Adonia? Why has your church reinterpreted the first "Mass?"

 

Having a meal was indeed once a tradition, but it fell into disuse once permanent church buildings centered on worship were built. The memorial that we were commanded to reenact continues on abated and that is the core of worship, not the communal meal of regular food.

The Church has the power to "bind and loose", have you forgotten that? (I hope that this clarification helps, there just might be some hope for you yet to understand these things).

 

The body of Christ is never torn asunder. Only the Roman church and other churches have been split. Had Rome not followed heresy, God would not have needed to split the kingdom as He did. Like the nation of Israel, after Solomon's sins, so the church at Rome was split because of its many great sins and apostasies. Oh that Rome would repent and turn back to her Lord, by understanding grace which comes before works.