Martin Luther/Adolf Hitler

[JesusFan]

Short of spending hours writing a great screed that you won't bother to read, Reformed Theology is theology reformed according to the word of God, '...that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped' (2 Cor. 3:17)and 'that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written' (1 Cor, 4:6). The great Reformed confessions lead with (for example), 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience (Westminster Confession, !689 Baptist Confession 1:1). But the question then arises, what does the Holy Scripture teach? The J.W.s, Mormons, Roman Catholics and other cults will say that they follow Scripture. The Reformed confessions go into great detail explaining the teaching of the Scripture, and it is up to you to read them through carefully before dismissing them. Reformed Episcopal churches also had Statements of Faith, for instance, the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England that bound it to the Scriptures. Unfortunately, some time in the 20th Century, the Articles were quietly dumped and the C of E, despite some very fine individual churches, is pretty much apostate.

What 'liberal theology' are you thinking of? I can't answer you unless you provide something to answer, but I can assure you that 'anything' does not go.

By repenting, and trusting in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation (eg. Mark 1:15).

Even the Lutheran Churches do not exclude the Book of James from the Canon. SFAIK, every Reformed denomination accepts the 66 book canon of Scripture. Luther was a man, and like all men he was fallible, but he was used of God to kick-start the Reformation. But I am a Baptist, and I follow Luther no further than he followed the Bible. Sproul was a Presbyterian, but I am sure he would say the same as I concerning Luther.

Per we Baptists, bible is the final and u;ltimate siritual authority, but per Rome its council pf Trent and the dictates of the Papacy

 

[JesusFan]

Reformed theology is built on subjective human interpretations of scripture.

Every appeal to scripture is an appeal to someone’s interpretation of scripture.

The question is, whose interpretation of scripture has Authority.

William Lane Craig says we should be very careful not reject the theological determinations of the early ecumenical Councils, but he adds the Protestant line, unless it diverges from scripture.

Diverges from whose interpretation of Scripture? Each individual? The problem remains like a fat hairy stinking mammoth in the room.

This is where subjective relativist Protestantism bashes it’s head against the wall. There is no objective truth, there is no final arbiter in RT, no Pope, they are sheep without a shepherd appointed by Christ. They have pasture as they have scripture, but they are still sheep without an authoritive shepherd.

You don’t need a different Bible to be deceived by a different gospel, just a different interpretation of the Bible.

Why should we follow the Authority of the ecumenical Councils? Because they are gatherings of the entire Church universal. All the heads of all the Churches everywhere. Jesus promised the guidance in all truth to the Church, the entire church can not be entirely deceived.

So judge by universal belief as your starting point. What interpretations of scripture were universally believed by the whole Church.

Only 66 canonized books of scripture themselves ever were inspired to us from God as our supreme spiritual authority

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Reformed theology is built on subjective human interpretations of scripture.

Reformed theology is based upon the commands of the Lord Jesus - "Have you not even read this Scripture....?" "You do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God." - and the Apostles - 'For the Scripture says.....' And the command is to 'Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, Rightly dividing the word of truth.' How is the man of God going to be 'thoroughly equipped'? 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.' Nothing else is suggested. And how is Timothy to conduct himself as a 'good soldier of Christ Jesus'? He is commanded in the most serious terms imaginable, not to conduct the mass every day, but to 'Preach the word! ...... Convince, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching.'

Every appeal to scripture is an appeal to someone’s interpretation of scripture.

The man of God is led by the Holy Spirit. 'Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.'

The question is, whose interpretation of scripture has Authority.

Good question. According to John, many Antichrists were in the world in his day, and Jude spoke of 'certain men [who] have crept in unnoticed.' Do we accept the 'church fathers'? Hardly. They might be the very people the apostles were warning us against. And some of their teaching is alarming. The one who wrote by far the most about baptism was Cyril of Jerusalem. Writing towards the end of the 4th Century, he appears to know nothing about infant baptism, but wanted to have adults baptized stark naked! Why is the Church of Rome not following him?

William Lane Craig says we should be very careful not reject the theological determinations of the early ecumenical Councils, but he adds the Protestant line, unless it diverges from scripture.

Diverges from whose interpretation of Scripture? Each individual? The problem remains like a fat hairy stinking mammoth in the room.

The fat, hairy stinking mammoth in the room is that one council contradicted another. Mr Craig is right. We should eat the meat and spit out the bones.

This is where subjective relativist Protestantism bashes it’s head against the wall. There is no objective truth, there is no final arbiter in RT, no Pope, they are sheep without a shepherd appointed by Christ. They have pasture as they have scripture, but they are still sheep without an authoritive shepherd.

As I've pointed out before, some 'popes' were exceedingly wicked, and at times there were two or even three of them at the same time, firing of anathemas at each other. On this very board we have had Roman Catholics strongly rejecting the teaching of 'pope' Francis.

You don’t need a different Bible to be deceived by a different gospel, just a different interpretation of the Bible.

Why should we follow the Authority of the ecumenical Councils? Because they are gatherings of the entire Church universal. All the heads of all the Churches everywhere. Jesus promised the guidance in all truth to the Church, the entire church can not be entirely deceived.

Jesus promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not the guidance of 'popes' or councils. The Coucil of Ephesus in 449 was overthrown by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. And not everyone agreed with that council. Have a look at canon 28, which said that the 'patriarchs' of Constantinople were equal to the 'popes' of Rome. And where are either popes or patriarchs in the Bible? Nowhere. Nor are there BIshops in the way that the Church of Rome has arranged them. There were multiple episkopoi in the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1) and we find in Acts 20, by comparing verses 17 and 28 that episkopoi are identical to presbuteroi, elders. The Church of Rome is unbiblical, and no numbers of councils can change that. There is some valuable stuff in the councils, but a lot of junk as well.

So judge by universal belief as your starting point. What interpretations of scripture were universally believed by the whole Church.

Judge by the Scriptures, and by the Holy Spirit. Cathode would have you believe that the Church is hopelessly divided. Yet I am invited to preach at Congregational, Presbyterian and Brethren churches as well as Baptist ones, and my church has excellent relations with Bible-believing Anglican churches. The unity of the Church is spiritual, not organizational.

 

[Cathode]

Judge by the Scriptures, and by the Holy Spirit. Cathode would have you believe that the Church is hopelessly divided. Yet I am invited to preach at Congregational, Presbyterian and Brethren churches as well as Baptist ones, and my church has excellent relations with Bible-believing Anglican churches. The unity of the Church is spiritual, not organizational.

Ridiculous.

You don’t have spiritual unity, you aren’t in agreement on the things of God, and this manifests physically by separate denominations, which is not biblical.

You are divided physically because you are divided spiritually.

You may make ecumenical overtures by avoiding theological differences, but this is still not spiritual unity.

 

[Cathode]

Jesus promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not the guidance of 'popes' or councils. The Coucil of Ephesus in 449 was overthrown by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. And not everyone agreed with that council. Have a look at canon 28, which said that the 'patriarchs' of Constantinople were equal to the 'popes' of Rome. And where are either popes or patriarchs in the Bible? Nowhere. Nor are there BIshops in the way that the Church of Rome has arranged them. There were multiple episkopoi in the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1) and we find in Acts 20, by comparing verses 17 and 28 that episkopoi are identical to presbuteroi, elders. The Church of Rome is unbiblical, and no numbers of councils can change that. There is some valuable stuff in the councils, but a lot of junk as well.

Jesus promise was to the Apostles and their successors.

The Councils are how The Holy Spirit guided the Church, it’s not just two or three gathered, it’s the entire Church gathered.

The Protestant mindset makes itself the final arbiter and authority. Doesn’t matter if the entire Church gathered to determine doctrine, they can reject it because they alone are guided by The Holy Spirit, the Great Councils can’t be guided by The Holy Spirit.

Find it strange that The Holy Spirit seemingly teaches each Protestant according to his own conflicting opinion of scripture.

 

[JonC]

The Antisemitic Link Between Hitler and Martin Luther - Dr. Eitan Bar

Martin Luther was a German theologian and religious reformer who initiated the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Regrettably, the reformation did not

eitan.bar

"Undeniably, the Nazis used Luther’s writings as they rose to power and initiated the Holocaust. In his famous book, Mein Kampf, published in 1925, Adolf Hitler praised Martin Luther as “a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer.”

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=constructing

"The Darker Side of Martin Luther Abstract In 1543 Luther published his infamous On the Jews and Their Lies. His main arguments can be divided into four major parts. In the first part, Luther attacked what he considered the Jews’ “false boasts,” mainly their lineage and covenant of circumcision. In the second part, he debated key biblical passages. Third, he focused on the grossest medieval superstitions concerning the Jews are the focus of the third part. The fourth, and final, part included Luther’s recommendations for actions concerning the Jews. For the purposes of this paper, the fourth part of this treatise will be primarily examined. It contains the most evidence for Luther’s anti-Semitic views, and the Nazis quoted Luther most often from this section."

In light of these facts of history, why is Luther held in such high-esteem among conservative Christian spokesmen?

He is held in high esteem because of how God used him.

Another is George Whitfield, who was pro-slavery.

When we look back at these men it is easy to find the flaws. Luther (and Whitfield) were products of their time. But we can look back at God's work despite the flawed men used in that work with a greater appreciation.

One of my favorites is Tozier. He was very flawed when it came to neglecting his family. I guess at times we have to look at the good despite the bad in the human being.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ridiculous.

You don’t have spiritual unity, you aren’t in agreement on the things of God, and this manifests physically by separate denominations, which is not biblical.

You are divided physically because you are divided spiritually.

You may make ecumenical overtures by avoiding theological differences, but this is still not spiritual unity.

You need to read the Bible. Specifically Mark 9:38-40; Romans 14:1ff; 1 Cor. 8:1-3; REvelation 7:9-10. My church is affiliated to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. We are not in a denomination, and therefore we are not bound by denominational rules. Here is its statement on ecumenism. Gospel Unity Ethos Statement - FIEC . There is a movement in Britain called Churches Together. This consists of just about any church who will say that Jesus is very nice. The Roman Catholic churches are among its most devoted members. But as you will see from the link, we will have nothing to do with it.
We seek fellowship with churches of all denominations and none which follow the core beliefs of the Gospel. So we will and do have fellowship with evangelical Anglican churches, but not with Anglo-catholic or liberal ones. But that does not mean that we accept their bishops and archbishops. If the bishop is a godly man, we will treat him as such, but we don't acknowledge his episcopal authority because we don't find it in the Bible.