Who made God?

[GodsGrace]

And the Luther led reformation denied these truths? I think not.
So what point are you trying to make?
Why not make an honest list of those things Martin Luther found in Roman dogma that were discarded by the reformation, and don't cloud the issues.

Hi Calvin,

I was raised RC and taught n that church and know the doctrine. Jim Parker was never Catholic.

Let me say quickly that I'm very torn as to the reformation. I think it was necessary because the RCC had gone astray in teaching.
OTOH, it caused much division and has led, after a few hundred years, to doctrine which is not biblical.

It seems like Christianity is getting watered down more and more. I sometimes will debate at some length here regarding doctrine that is just not found in the bible. Someone had to actually come up with an idea, then read through the N.T. with that idea in mind looking for scripture that agrees with it.

Basically, what Luther found wrong with the RCC was its teaching on what saves man.
The RCC, at that time, taught that it was man's works. This was because people were not educated and the church felt it could not properly teach about salvation. Thus, Luther read Ephesians 2:8 and his lightbulb went on.

Did you know that Luther continued in his belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

What happened is that the reformers changed doctrine as time went on. Today, we protestants beleive that the Eucharist is only a symbol of the death of Christ. We no longer believe in confession even though Jesus clearly told the Apostles they could forgive sin in John 20. (verse 23?)

I'll tell you some good things the Catholic church did back in the beginning BEFORE it was even called the RCC. It kept heresies out of the church. I fear what kind of faith we'd be following had they not done so. The Councils declared what the church believed to make clear what were h eresies and what were truths. For example, the dual nature of Jesus as mentioned. Some thought He was just a man.

The Trinity, although scriptural, is not clearly seen upon readin the N.T. and had to be understood on a theological basis by man.
Justification and Sanctification had to be a theological concept created by man, even though it is definetly biblical.

In fact, if we all understood J and S better, there would be no debating about OSAS.

I don't know if this helps. The reformation was good because it forced the RCC to take a look at itself.
It was bad because it divided Christianity.

 

[Jim Parker]

And the Luther led reformation denied these truths? I think not.

Luther did not "lead the Reformation."
Luther was expelled from the RCC because he would not relent on his opposition to the sale of indulgences.
He never wanted to have a Church named after him

Why not make an honest list of those things Martin Luther found in Roman dogma that were discarded by the reformation, and don't cloud the issues.

Your question is actually a red herring redirecting the conversation away from my comment that you have mistaken the traditions of man for the apostolic teaching.

Reformers rejected the scriptural, apostolic, and historical Christian teaching that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. Luther never did.
Reformers rejected the teaching that doctrinal and teaching authority rests in the Church and placed it in scripture. (Which is subject to the personal interpretations of every Tom, Dick and Harriet.) Luther never did that nor does scripture.
Reformers adopted the notion of salvation by faith alone without works. Luther never did that nor does scripture.

 

[Jim Parker]

CLICK TO EXPAND

I learned that there are 3 deaths.

Did I say that?

 

[Jim Parker]

Well it was aptly named a reformation after all said and done.

It is more aptly named the division of the kingdom of God. (into 10s of thousands of sects)
Mar 3:24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
Satan was taking notes and was successful in dividing the Kingdom of God (the Church) against itself with the result of the rise of neo-paganism and the defiling of entire civilizations.
Thanks for the reform.

 

[Papa Zoom]

The Reformation was, IMO, well within God's plan for the Church of Christ.

 

[Jim Parker]

The Reformation was, IMO, well within God's plan for the Church of Christ.

And on what do you base your opinion? ('cause it looks like a disaster to me)

 

[GodsGrace]

Did I say that?

Jim,
Your comment was that you don't know what people mean re spiritual death.
I told you w hat I learned.
I might have gone overboard on the response.
For those reading along, I like to make replies complete.

This does not ever mean that my reply intends that the person does not know something...
(Unless I specifically say so)

 

[calvin]

It is more aptly named the division of the kingdom of God. (into 10s of thousands of sects)

No red herrings here...can you list the 10s of thousands of sects for us?
But something to consider:
Jesus went against the establishment because the traditions of men.
Mar 7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem,
Mar 7:2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.
Mar 7:3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders,
Mar 7:4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)
Mar 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
Mar 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”Esv.

Seems to me, history does indeed repeat.

 

[GodsGrace]

calvin
I have to say that I believe the Orthodox have kept Christianity the most pure of any church.
I wish Jim Parker would give us a 25 word history of what that church was doing while the RCC was selling indulgences after the year 1,000 when the split happened between the RCC and the orthodox due to difference of opinion regarding the authority of the Pope in Rome.

I do believe the RCC went astray, as I've stated before.
But I really hate what we have now too.

I mean, could you imagine arguing over whether or not eternal security is biblical?
How do we determine this?

I've often said that the idea did NOT EXIST before 1,500, but it's not accepted by those who believe in OSAS.
Why not, I ask? No one replies.

Did Calvin (Luther) know more than all the theologians that came before them?
Could they all have been wrong?

Could most of the mainline churches today be wrong? They do NOT believe in eternal security.
You just cannot pluck verses out of the bible. It's A COMPLETE THOUGHT.

If we are IN CHRIST,,,,, we are saved.
If we are NOT IN CHRIST,,,,,,,we cannot be saved.

Paul and the writers meant that we are SEALED IN CHRIST by the Holy Spirit.
No Christ, No Holy Spirit, No sealing.

Kings in those days who sent SEALED decrees, many times changed their minds and sent a new SEALED DECREE
dismissing the first one, or UNDOING it.

We need to remember WHEN the bible was written, the customs of that day, how people understood things.
Isn't this what hermeunetics is all about??


----to tie this into the thread...
Who Made God?
and
Who IS God?
Is there more than one??

 

[Randy]

Luther did not "lead the Reformation."
Luther was expelled from the RCC because he would not relent on his opposition to the sale of indulgences.
He never wanted to have a Church named after him

Your question is actually a red herring redirecting the conversation away from my comment that you have mistaken the traditions of man for the apostolic teaching.

Reformers rejected the scriptural, apostolic, and historical Christian teaching that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. Luther never did.
Reformers rejected the teaching that doctrinal and teaching authority rests in the Church and placed it in scripture. (Which is subject to the personal interpretations of every Tom, Dick and Harriet.) Luther never did that nor does scripture.
Reformers adopted the notion of salvation by faith alone without works. Luther never did that nor does scripture.

Its sanctification by faith in Jesus. As Jesus stated to Paul at Paul's appointment. I didn't find anything in the NT about Matthias's letters. So your premise of apostolic succession is up for a debate. I don't hold to it.

What work do you do or have done to have your sins forgiven? What God gives He gives freely. What you earn from man you may have to work hard for.

I do believe elders and leaders are found in other denominations. So the leader concept is not entirely rejected as you state. Its that those leaders are far more accountable. What is true is no one person is trusted to state all law. And scripture is looked at by any who wish to see if what is stated as lawful and unlawful is true. The scripture is not locked up for a few elite to dictate to all. We therefore would reject the notation that the pope is the vicar of Christ Jesus. As with the "7" churches in Rev I am sure the Lord would state what He approved of and disapproved of in regard to the catholic church. Not all bad and not all good.

History will show in any religion when church and state are fused hypocrisy reigns.

 

[Randy]

Western churches -The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.
Eastern churches - The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
So the eastern churches were called heretics and excommunicated. Ha! Only in their own mind did the western church have that authority to drive people away from the "Head" of the body of Christ.

The NT
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "through the Son"
The Spirit Jesus sent into the world He received from the Father. Acts 2

 

[calvin]

Hello calvin here.

I do believe the RCC went astray, as I've stated before.
But I really hate what we have now too.

I wouldn't overly worry about it.
Ignoring the sects such as the JWs and a few others, I see no cause for alarm.
Why?
Because (for me), to throw my arms up in dismay would be to doubt the Power of Christ to run His Church.
The Orthodox Church still holds that during the Eucharist the bread and wine are changed to the actual body and blood of Jesus.
But this has no actual Biblical foundation. In fact an argument could be made that it is beyond wrong.
Then too, reserving the right to give absolution to the office of the priests has no Biblical authorization either that I am aware of.

 

[calvin]

We need to remember WHEN the bible was written, the customs of that day, how people understood things.
Isn't this what hermeneutics is all about??

Perhaps, not exactly.
Try the formula:
Form, Context, Meaning, and Significance.
Not really different from what you are saying, just clarified a little.

Did Calvin (Luther) know more than all the theologians that came before them?
Could they all have been wrong?

Have you considered that today's scholars have access to more and better researched texts than were available centuries ago?

I mean, could you imagine arguing over whether or not eternal security is biblical?
How do we determine this?

I can argue over anything
I sometimes think that a lot of these subjects are driven by what we want to believe rather than an open hearted study of the Scriptures.
Other hot topics are death, soul sleep, hell, eternal punishment and works within grace or not.
edited some spelling bads

 

[Papa Zoom]

And on what do you base your opinion? ('cause it looks like a disaster to me)

And you think the history of the Church was not a disaster before the Reformation? The Church had strayed very far from its Biblical roots. It wasn't all neat an tidy. And it wasn't about to be reformed. It needed to have a massive smackdown and the Reformation did just that.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,
Your comment was that you don't know what people mean re spiritual death.
I told you w hat I learned.
I might have gone overboard on the response.
For those reading along, I like to make replies complete.

This does not ever mean that my reply intends that the person does not know something...
(Unless I specifically say so)

AH!
I was confused as to which part I said and what you were saying.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jesus went against the establishment because the traditions of men.

Jesus went back to the original teaching.
That apostles preserved that teaching and passed on to the early church fathers.
They continued that tradition of protecting the teaching of Jesus against multiple heresies that arose from the 2nd through 8th centuries.
The reformers decided they didn't need what Jesus and the apostles taught about the Eucharist, the authority of the Church, the necessity to combine faith with works, etc.
The result is what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace" and thousands of sects.

can you list the 10s of thousands of sects for us?

Look them up yourself.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

 

[Jim Parker]

Its sanctification by faith in Jesus.

Faith without works is dead and won't justify anyone. (James 2)

I didn't find anything in the NT about Matthias's letters.

So what?
I didn't say anything about any letters by him if there are any.

So your premise of apostolic succession is up for a debate. I don't hold to it.

Can you define apostolic succession?

What work do you do or have done to have your sins forgiven?

That's a red herring.
I never said that works are necessary to forgive sine.

What God gives He gives freely. What you earn from man you may have to work hard for.

I never said differently.

I do believe elders and leaders are found in other denominations. So the leader concept is not entirely rejected as you state.

I didn't say any leader concept was rejected.

The scripture is not locked up for a few elite to dictate to all.

No. It is not. But, unfortunately, there are many people coming up with a lot of nonsense because they are not equipped to properly understand the Biblical literature. (Ex: A 7th Day Adventist told me that there are people on other planets who never needed salvation because they did not fall and that it's right there in the Bible.)

We therefore would reject the notation that the pope is the vicar of Christ Jesus.

I'd say he is one of many as are you.

As with the "7" churches in Rev I am sure the Lord would state what He approved of and disapproved of in regard to the catholic church. Not all bad and not all good.

True. As with every denomination.

History will show in any religion when church and state are fused hypocrisy reigns.

I have seen plenty of hypocrisy in various Protestant denominations.
And I have seen as much secularization in Protestant churches just as in state churches.
No one owns the market on hypocrisy or secularization or apostasy. You'll find it in all the churches.

 

[calvin]

Can you define apostolic succession?

How is it you ask someone to define a thing that does not exist?

 

[Jim Parker]

The Church had strayed very far from its Biblical roots.

The Western church did. No so in the East.
The selling of indulgences was the last straw for Luther but, beginning with Augustine, Platonism and Aristotelian teaching was introduced into the western Christianity and severely changed the trajectory of theology. Much of what the RCC developed through the scholastics transferred directly into Protestantism

It needed to have a massive smackdown and the Reformation did just that.

It needed to get rid of the selling of indulgences and the Platonic/Aristotelian influence.
What the Reformation did was keep the Platonic/Aristotelian influence, tossed out the original teaching of the Eucharist, denigrated baptism to a public show of having joined the church, and replaced the selling of indulgences with the peddling of cheap grace.
Oh well...
.

 

[Jim Parker]

How is it you ask someone to define a thing that does not exist?

There is no need to mock what you do not understand. It does not enhance your standing among your peers. If it did, you would need to consider finding new peers.)
Apostolic succession has existed for almost 2000 years.
Paul spelled out how it works.
2Ti 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Tit 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—