Luther Was Error Free In Every Religious Doctrine

[MennoSota]

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 commanded to reenact continues on abated, and that is the core of worship, not the communal meal of regular food. My Church has the power to "bind and loose", have you forgotten that?

Your church is bound in sin and chains, yet you relish the chains and celebrate its many sins.

 

[Adonia]

Your church is bound in sin and chains, yet you relish the chains and celebrate its many sins.

Only relating the truth to you. But you disappoint me brother, I thought we were making progress. Oh well, such is life!

 

[Adonia]

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.

None of that was God's work, it was the work of the evil one. Luther opened up the doors and the devil walked right in. Christians then began killing each other over doctrinal differences and Satan had only joy at what had happened.

 

[MennoSota]

Only relating the truth to you. But you disappoint me brother, I thought we were making progress. Oh well, such is life!

Adonia, you wish to pull us back into a salvation by works. That is not progress. The ceremonies of men are of no value in dealing with sin. God's grace and God's grace alone can bring us freedom in Christ. Insisting on extra works is not taught in God's word and was added by your clergy as a means of keeping people in bondage to their rules, not as a means of pointing people to the Savior.
Adonia, it was by God's Sovereign will that the Reformation took place and pointed people back toward saving grace. Instead of cursing the reform, you should embrace it. It is your unwillingness to embrace God's word over tradition that is disappointing.

 

[MennoSota]

None of that was God's work, it was the work of the evil one. Luther opened up the doors and the devil walked right in. Christians then began killing each other over doctrinal differences and Satan had only joy at what had happened.

No, it came by God's ordinance. Rome was in heresy and when Luther called for a rational discussion, Rome opted to wage war against the Reform that God desired to make in the church at Rome. Rome refused to follow God's word over their traditions and thus God removed their kingdom, just as He did with a rebellious Israel. Sadly, Rome still follows the path of the Northern kingdom. I wish that Rome would repent, just as Paul wished that his fellow Jews would repent.

 

[Yeshua1]

[


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.

There has NEVER been a Mass, as there has NEVER been a time when the blood and flesh of Jesus ever changed!

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

The first christianopracticed adult/believers baptism though....

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it came by God's ordinance. Rome was in heresy and when Luther called for a rational discussion, Rome opted to wage war against the Reform that God desired to make in the church at Rome. Rome refused to follow God's word over their traditions and thus God removed their kingdom, just as He did with a rebellious Israel. Sadly, Rome still follows the path of the Northern kingdom. I wish that Rome would repent, just as Paul wished that his fellow Jews would repent.

God gave RCC chance to repent and reform, it choose to go trent, and Apostasy...

 

[Yeshua1]

Adonia, you wish to pull us back into a salvation by works. That is not progress. The ceremonies of men are of no value in dealing with sin. God's grace and God's grace alone can bring us freedom in Christ. Insisting on extra works is not taught in God's word and was added by your clergy as a means of keeping people in bondage to their rules, not as a means of pointing people to the Savior.
Adonia, it was by God's Sovereign will that the Reformation took place and pointed people back toward saving grace. Instead of cursing the reform, you should embrace it. It is your unwillingness to embrace God's word over tradition that is disappointing.

Galatians comes to mind here!

 

[Walter]

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

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

Oh, I have no doubt that heretics were sometimes put to death. Heresy was considered a grave offense and it's spread would jeopardize the souls of people.

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

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

So, I suppose your Baptist church is 'the true church'? Do you also, as so many on the board do, believe in Baptist Successionism?

Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics."

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:

Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

 

[Adonia]

Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

Yep, the 17th century and the founder was a man named John Smyth, a former Anglican priest.

 

[TCassidy]

Yep, the 17th century and the founder was a man named John Smyth, a former Anglican priest.

Only if you think baptist is a denominational name. But if you see it as a doctrinal identity then "the faith once delivered to the saints" has been perpetual from the time Christ proclaimed "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

 

[Bro. James]

Oh, I have no doubt that heretics were sometimes put to death. Heresy was considered a grave offense and it's spread would jeopardize the souls of people.



So, I suppose your Baptist church is 'the true church'? Do you also, as so many on the board do, believe in Baptist Successionism?

Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics."

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about Cardinal Hosius and his 4th century Anabaptists?

No, not a succession but rather a promise of perpetuity--Jesus told His disciples He would never leave them or forsake them. Also: "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." He has kept His promise. God has had a remnant in every
generation--what they may have been called is not relevant.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James



Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

 

[utilyan]

You guys should read up on more of the holy work your saint Martin Luther whom you got your theology from.


"base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." -- On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther

On the Jews and Their Lies - Wikipedia

 

[Yeshua1]

You guys should read up on more of the holy work your saint Martin Luther whom you got your theology from.


"base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." -- On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther

On the Jews and Their Lies - Wikipedia

The ONLY inspired revelation from God to us are the scriptures, period!

 

[Yeshua1]

Only if you think baptist is a denominational name. But if you see it as a doctrinal identity then "the faith once delivered to the saints" has been perpetual from the time Christ proclaimed "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The earliest churches in Acts would have held to what we call Baptist Theology pretty much....

 

[MennoSota]

Oh, I have no doubt that heretics were sometimes put to death. Heresy was considered a grave offense and it's spread would jeopardize the souls of people.



So, I suppose your Baptist church is 'the true church'? Do you also, as so many on the board do, believe in Baptist Successionism?

Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics."

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:

Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

Wow, your ignorance is impressive.
The body of Christ is not found in one denomination. God has His chosen and adopted children in many different denomination...including a small remnant in the church at Rome.
The foolishness of imaging Rome as the body of Christ is shown by simply shining the light on the vast number of perversions found within the priesthood that even pagans and atheists are appalled at seeing. It would have been better if the abusive priests had been bound in chains and cast into the deepest sea than to have them abusing children.
This goes for all sinners in all denominations who are not connected by virtue of adoption to the head of the church, Yeshua, Jesus.
Shame on anyone who thinks they are a part of the body of Christ by virtue of the church they attend. Ask yourself, "Has Yeshua adopted me? Has Yeshua pardoned me? That answer matters. The building you go to means nothing.

 

[John Yurich]

The Holy Spirit accepts the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion as scriptural or He would not have guided Luther how to formulate the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion. And the Holy Spirit does not believe the Mass is entirely unscriptural or He would not have guided Luther to retain the Mass(minus the unscriptural parts) in the Lutheran Church.

 

[MennoSota]

The Holy Spirit accepts the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion as scriptural or He would not have guided Luther how to formulate the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion. And the Holy Spirit does not believe the Mass is entirely unscriptural or He would not have guided Luther to retain the Mass(minus the unscriptural parts) in the Lutheran Church.

Luther didn't formulate the communion process for the denomination that takes his name. However, his successor formulated the compromise.

If you don't mind my asking, how long have you worshipped Martin Luther?

 

[John Yurich]

Luther didn't formulate the communion process for the denomination that takes his name. However, his successor formulated the compromise.

If you don't mind my asking, how long have you worshipped Martin Luther?

I do not worship Luther. I believe that he was the greatest of the Protestant Reformers. I only worship Jesus as God. I am both Catholic and Baptist. I am a Baptized Catholic who attends the local Catholic parish on Saturday Vigil Mass. I am a Baptist as the result of having been Baptized via immersion at that Baptist Church I attend on Sunday mornings.