According to Mr. Lane Core, "[t]he really big heretic, schismatic and apostate was Martin Luther."

Is this is the teaching of Pope John Paul II, the Magesterium, or Vatican II?

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 14, 1999

Answers

As to Luther being a heretic is not a concern of this Catholic for I leave the final judgement to God The Father. He was an unfortunate who allowed human weakness to overcome his goals as a cleric. He was an unfortunate pawn in the hands of politicos of the time who at first was seduced and then in turn seduced. Sad little man.+Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 15, 1999.

Martin Luther was not a "sad little man." Martin Luther was a great man of God, who boldly preached the truth about man and his need for Christ. When he preached, pagan strongholds fell left and right (just like with St. Paul). How many pagan strongholds fell at Assisi?

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 15, 1999.

Steve - I ask you what is the referance constantly to Assissi please? You confuse me many times with your postings. As to Luther I am not comdemning him as I said for that is up to God The Father. The damage done by him and others split Europe in two and caused much much pain even to this day.

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 15, 1999.

Jean --

The "Assisi event" took place in Assisi, Italy in October 1986. The Pope and other alleged Christians and members of anti-Christian religions such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, animism, etc. got together to pray for peace. The participants at this event -- which resembled the famous "bar scene" in Star Wars -- did not simultaneously pray. However, one after the other, each prayed to the deity/idol of his choice. Apparently, an idol of the Buddha was even placed on an alter tabernacle at St. Francis' church.

The Pope said the following at this disgraceful event: "Yes, there is a dimension of prayer, which in the very real diversity of religions tries to express communications with a Power above all our human forces. Peace depends basically on this Power, which we call God, and as Christians believe has revealed himself in Christ." So God equals a "Power"! May the force be with you (I guess the Star Wars analogy fits).

JP II also said: "With the world religions we share a common respect for . . . conscience, which teaches all of us to seek truth . . . and therefore makes peace among individuals and among nations." This is a lie from the pit of hell. Islam, for example, does not teach its members to "make peace." The unregenerate conscience of Moslems teaches them to make war against Christians!

St. Augustine said it well: "The earthly city seeks and earthly peace." What type of peace will result from the religious unity? Not the peace of Jesus Christ.

Now, to his credit, JP II said a few good things at Assisi. He said "peace bears the name of Jesus Christ." Then he went on to deny this. What a confused man.

If the Pope and his ecumenical buddies were running Europe in the 8th Century, we would all be Moslems by now.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 15, 1999.

Steve - I thank you for having clarified the Assisi event. Your comments show the total lack of being aware of the human family. You are a fundamentalist plain and simple.

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 15, 1999.

<< Martin Luther was not a "sad little man." Martin Luther was a great man of God, who boldly preached the truth about man and his need for Christ. When he preached, pagan strongholds fell left and right (just like with St. Paul). How many pagan strongholds fell at Assisi? >>

I used to hold views about Martin Luther very similar to Steve's. There is a lively hagiography about Luther in Protestant circles and it is very rare that the actual facts of the man's life and character are examined. We shall do so here. It is not my intent to imply that there is nothing good about Martin Luther; there is some good in virtually all men. Rather, the negative information presented below is to complete a very lopsided portrait painted by Protestant Christians such as Steve who cling to this notion of Luther as a brave and godly reformer of the Church. (I gleaned the citations below from an unpublished paper by my friend Dave Armstrong entitled, "Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact". I will see if I can get a complete copy of this paper available on-line).

The Scriptures say, "When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it" (Eccl 5:4-5). Martin Luther took solemn vows before God of celibacy, poverty, and obedience to his superiors. These vows were every bit as binding and every bit as optional as marriage vows. Dr. Luther proceeded to break all his vows.

Hailed as a "reformer" of the Church, which it must be admitted had indeed fallen into terrible disrepair during his day, Martin Luther exhibited such incredible arrogance, such atrocious personal morals, and such vile manners that it is hard to believe that this man was God's appointed champion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So consumed was Martin Luther with his own sense of sinfulness that he proceeded to formulate a brand new doctrine never heard of in the history of the Church, justification by faith alone, and then set up a radical disjunction between this new "gospel" and the "law" which he defined as any moral command of God. In this way, Luther found a way to excuse his own moral failings.

Luther's Theology = A License to Sin: "If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day" (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther's Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82).

"When the devil comes to tempt and harass you . . . in-dulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him . . . otherwise we are beaten if we are too nervously sensitive about guarding against sin . . . I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind" (Table Talk in De Wette, 5.188; De Wette was a protestant scholar who collected the most significant sayings of Luther in several volumes).

Wherever the Scriptures order and command to do good works, you must so understand it that the Scriptures forbid good works (Luther's Works, Wittenberg ed. 2:171.6).

"Moses must ever be looked upon with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the Pope and the devil" (Commentary on Galatians).

"I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ" (Tischreden (Table Talk), L.C.12.s.17).

"If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews" (Luther's Works, Wittenberg ed., ad.5:1573).

Luther's Arrogance: "Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me" (Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422)

Luther's Sexual Lust: "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations [to lust] by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women" (Luther's Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O'Hare, "The Facts About Luther", Rockford, 1987, 311).

"I sit here in idleness and pray, alas, little, and sigh not for the Church of God. Much more am I consumed by the fires of my unbridled flesh. In a word, I who should burn of the spirit, am consumed by the flesh, and by lasciviousness" (De Wette 2. 22., cited in O'Hare p. 3l4).

"I burn with a thousand flames in my unsubdued flesh: I feel myself carried on with rage towards women that approaches madness. I who ought to be fervent in spirit, am only fervent in impurity" ("Table Talk" cited in O'Hare p. 315).

Chastity is Impossible According to Luther: "Chastity or continence was physically impossible . . . Though the womenfolk are ashamed to confess it, yet it is proved by Scripture and experience that there is not one among thousands to whom God gives grace to keep entirely chaste. A woman has no power over herself . . . Hence to vow or promise to restrain this natural propensity is the same as to vow or promise that one will have wings and fly and be an angel" (De Wette, 2.535).

"Chastity is as little within our power as the working of miracles . . . As little as we can do without eating and drinking, so it is impossible to do without women . . . The reason is that . . . from woman we were born and begotten; hence our flesh is for the most part womans flesh and it is impossible to abstain from it" (Table Talk, 2,S.20, S.27).

Luther on Bigamy: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture" (De Wette, 2.459).

To quote Dave Armstrong:

"Then there is the matter of the scandalous and universally- acknowledged affair concerning the bigamy of the Landgrave Philip of Hesse. Having heard of Luthers sexual liberalism, Philip petitioned him, asking permission to take another wife, so as to ameliorate his continuous adultery. At first Luther counseled the Prince to 'take an ordinary, honest girl and keep her secretly in a house and live with her in secret marital relations' (Lauterbach's Diary, Seidmann, 196). 'The secret marital relations of princes and great gentry is a valid marriage before God and is not unlike the concubinage and matrimony of the Patriarchs' (Table Talk, "Vom Concubinat der Fursten"). Even the Prince thought this too morally lax and persisted in his request for a sanc-tioned bigamous marriage (which was illegal). This was granted in a document written by Luthers right-hand man Melanchthon, and signed by Luther and six other 'reformers,' including Martin Bucer. It reads in part:

"It is nothing unusual for princes to have concubines; and although the reason could not be understood by ordinary people, nevertheless more prudent persons would understand it, and this modest way of living would please more than adultery . . . Your Highness, has, therefore, not only the decision of us all in case of necessity, but also our fore-going consideration" (De Wette, 6.255-265).

Luther's Responsibility for the Peasant Revolt Massacre: In 1525 a revolt of peasants against the German nobility ended in terrible tragedy and enormous loss of life. Luther sided with the nobles against the peasants and spurred on the gentry to violence against the common people:

"Pure deviltry is urging on the peasants . . . Therefore let all who are able, mow them down, slaughter and stab them openly or in secret . . . You must kill him as you would a mad dog. (O'Hare, "Facts," 232)

O'Hare continues:

"Luther's advice . . . was fulfilled to the letter . . . 'Like the mules,' he says, 'the civil powers must drive the common people, whip, choke, hang, burn, behead and torture them, that they may learn to fear the powers that be . . .The people must be forced, driven as one forces and drives swine and wild animals.' . . . The peasants were slaughtered like sheep. It is computed that more than l00,000 men fell in the field of battle . . . The voice of all history proclaims that Luther was the cause of the insurrection of the peasants and of their subsequent massa-cre. Protestant writers for the last four centuries have declared that he was the firebrand who alternately stirred up peasant against prince and prince against peasant" (O'Hare, 235-37; see Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 24.287ff.)

Unrepentant for this atrocity, Luther even went to far as to put the responsibility on God Himself:

"I, Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, for I said they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head. But I put it upon the Lord God by whose command I spoke . . . My little book against the peasants is quite in the right and shall remain so, even if all the world were to be scandalized at it" (Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 24.299).

Luther on the Jews: One hopes that Steve does not side with his hero in the proper way to deal with the Jews.

Jews, says Luther, ". . . will be tormented . . . in Hells deepest depths . . . What are we to do with this rejected, damned people? . . . I will give my honest advice. First, their synagogues or schools are to be set on fire . . . Secondly, their houses are likewise to be broken down and destroyed . . . Thirdly, all their Prayer Books and Talmuds are to be taken away from them . . . Fourthly, their Rabbis are to be forbidden under pain of capital punishment to teach any more . . . Fifthly, the Jews are to be entirely denied legal protection when using the roads in the country, for they have no business to be in the country . . . Sixth-ly, usury is to be forbidden them, and all their cash and their treasures . . . are to be taken away from them . . . all that they have . . . they have stolen and robbed from us through their usury" (Luther's Works, Weimar ed., 53.411-18; Erlangen ed., 32.217-53).

"Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand . . . If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them" (Cited by O'Hare, 290))

Dave Armstrong cites Protestant William Shirer, in his 1600-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

"It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Lu-ther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passion-ate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedi-ence to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews and . . . advised that . . . 'they be put under a roof or stable, like the Gypsies. in misery and captivity' . . . - advice that was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler . . . In . . . the peasant uprising of 1525, Luther advised the princes to adopt the most ruthless measures against the 'mad dogs' . . . Here, as in his utterances about the Jews, Luther employed a coarse-ness and brutality of language unequalled in German history until the Nazi time. The influence of this towering figure extended down the generations in Germany, especially among the Protestants. Among other results was the ease with which German Protestantism became the instrument of royal and priestly absolutism . . . until the kings and princes were overthrown in 1918 . . . In no country, with the exception of Czarist Russia, did the clergy become by tradition so completely servile to the political authority of the state . . . Like Niemoeller, most of the pastors welcomed the advent of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship in 1933 . . . Hitler . . . had always had a certain contempt for the Protestants: . . . 'You can do anything you want with them. They will submit . . . they are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs' . . . He was well aware that the resistance to the Nazification of the Protestant churches came from a minority of pastors and an even smaller minority of worshipers'" (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, NY: Fawcett Crest, 1960, 326-9).

Luther's Pangs of Conscience Over His Insurrection: On Nov. 25, 1521 he wrote to the Augustinians in Wittenberg: "With how much pain and labor did I scarcely justify my conscience that I alone should proceed against the Pope, hold him for Antichrist, and the bishops for his apostles. How often did my heart punish me and reproach me with this strong argument: 'Art thou alone wise? Could all the others err and have erred for a long time? How if thou errest and leadest into error so many people who would all be damned forever?'" (De Wette, 2. 107, cited in O'Hare p. 195).

That's all I have time for. Alas, there is so very, very much more to be said about this man. This should be quite enough for anybody, IMO.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 16, 1999.

Of course Luther said some unfortunate things. However, it has to be remembered that he had a peasant's sense of humor and was prone to exageration. I will respond in due course to Mr. Palm's quotations. However, his scholarship is open to question. He approvingly cites Shirer's book, but I know of no serious historian of the Third Reich that considers it a work of scholarship.

If we are going to "throw stones," then I could write endlessly about the scandelous and depraved behavior of popes and papists down to this day. One only has to think of the priests who molest children, and whose misdeads have been covered up by the RC church. Also, what about the spiritual harlotry of Rome through such things as the Assisi event?

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 16, 1999.

Steve, How do you justify the bigamy line, ? Please address some of these things if you can.

-- Pamela (Rosylace @aol.com), August 16, 1999.

Gee just when I thought of possibly converting to the Lutherin Church. What am I do with my Jewish friends? My female friends (gulp) concubines?? My lustful desires?? Watch out world this tired 54 year old is ready - I think? - Shall never borrow money from the bank again being Jewish owned and world dominating. God there is so much to be a good Lutherin I shall stay were I am.

Steve - PLEASE do not waste any more time on the site wiht this stuff. Perhaps people could simply step away from the game and it will stop.

DAve - Nice piece of work. When ae you on lecture tour please?

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 16, 1999.

Some "unfortunate things"? LOL, that's a good one! You're a master of understatement, Steve, I'll give you that.

In the interest of truth, Steve, will you retract your claim that Luther was a "godly" man? Or should I bring in evidence of his drinking problem, his horrendously foul language that embarrassed even his fellow Protestants, his reviling of reason itself, etc.? I don't want to have to do that; wallowing in Luther's filthy writings is unpleasant. But I think it's clear enough from what has been said that this man was no reformer of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I think your comments above make it quite clear that you simply have a Catholic bashing agenda rather than seeking truth.

Steve, again I have to ask myself and you what your purpose for being here is. We are all quite well aware of the difficulties we face in the Catholic Church these days. Well I've got news for you, we've faced difficult times before. Remember the Arian heresy? Oh, no, of course you don't; your "church" was started in 1517 (well, the MO Synod is later than that really). The Church is always in need of reform, always reforming. These days she is badly in need of reform. But that reform takes place within the Church. And it begins with me. I get angry here and I say things are that stronger than they should be. But the bottom line is that reform starts with me. I have to be holy, as our Father is holy. If enough "me's" seek holiness then the Church will reform and the Holy Spirit will come afresh on us.

I am not and don't have to be happy about everything that John Paul II or any other pope does. We have never claimed that they are impeccable and you know that full well. I am simply saying that your "solution" is no solution at all. I will not follow the drunken and foul mouthed German in his break with the Apostolic Faith. I will not follow his theological innovations, for which he cannot find even one single individual prior to his revolt to support him, nor any support in Scripture outside of some furtive prooftexting. Reforming the Church does not consist of smashing it into thousands upon thousands of competing sects, millions of individual "mini-popes" who pick and choose among the teachings of Scripture to piece together their own custom theology.

I will hold fast to the Catholic faith as it comes to us from the Apostles, along with all the other saints down through history who at various times looked and wept at corruption or scandal within the Church. And the Church will reform; she always does. She will not reform as the liberals wish, with the discarding of moral absolutes, abandonment sexual boundaries, and loss of doctrinal definitions. And perhaps she will not even reform as us "conservatives" wish; God has a habit of surprising us all.

The key here is the eye of faith. It took the greatest faith to look upon the broken, bruised and bleeding Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and say, "Even so, this is the Son of God." So too with the broken and bleeding Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.

So come join the fight in Holy Church, Steve, or keep plugging away in your dwindling little sect but for all of our sakes please quit your pathetic Catholic bashing crusade.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 17, 1999.

"In the interest of truth, Steve, will you retract your claim that Luther was a "godly" man? Or should I bring in evidence of his drinking problem, his horrendously foul language that embarrassed even his fellow Protestants, his reviling of reason itself, etc.? "

I have said it before & will say it again: Martin Luther was a great man of God and the Reformation was the work of God.

"I don't want to have to do that; wallowing in Luther's filthy writings is unpleasant. But I think it's clear enough from what has been said that this man was no reformer of the Church of Jesus Christ."

Apparently, Luther's bad language disqualifies him from being a man of God. However, Dave thinks that, e.g., certain Renaissance popes who had concubines and illegitimate children were the infallible spokesmen of God!

"I think your comments above make it quite clear that you simply have a Catholic bashing agenda rather than seeking truth."

My goal is to preach the Good News!

"Remember the Arian heresy? Oh, no, of course you don't; your "church" was started in 1517 (well, the MO Synod is later than that really). The Church is always in need of reform, always reforming. These days she is badly in need of reform."

My Church was started by Jesus Christ and is maintained by His Spirit. Incidentally, in Redemptor Hominis, JP II never refers to the church as the "Roman Catholic Church."

"I am not and don't have to be happy about everything that John Paul II or any other pope does. We have never claimed that they are impeccable and you know that full well. I am simply saying that your "solution" is no solution at all. I will not follow the drunken and foul mouthed German in his break with the Apostolic Faith."

No, but you will follow a man who believes that anti-Christian Moslems are his "brothers in God," and Islam is "God's way."

"I will not follow his theological innovations, for which he cannot find even one single individual prior to his revolt to support him, nor any support in Scripture outside of some furtive prooftexting."

What is the theological precedence for Assisi, Dave? Isn't that an innovation?

"Reforming the Church does not consist of smashing it into thousands upon thousands of competing sects, millions of individual "mini- popes" who pick and choose among the teachings of Scripture to piece together their own custom theology."

Now, Dave says that protestants are "mini-popes." Let's see: Dave has already indicated that: (1) he does not approve of Assisi; (2) he does not approve of alter girls (and I assume women serving communion); and (3) he does not have the same view of Luther and protestantism that JP II has. So Dave is his own Pope! For example, JP II has said that Assisi finds its justification in Vatican II. I guess Dave and not JP II is supposed to tell us what Vatican II means.

"I will hold fast to the Catholic faith as it comes to us from the Apostles, along with all the other saints down through history who at various times looked and wept at corruption or scandal within the Church. And the Church will reform; she always does. She will not reform as the liberals wish, with the discarding of moral absolutes, abandonment sexual boundaries, and loss of doctrinal definitions. And perhaps she will not even reform as us "conservatives" wish; God has a habit of surprising us all."

Well, I commend you for sticking with orthodox catholicism.

"So come join the fight in Holy Church, Steve, or keep plugging away in your dwindling little sect but for all of our sakes please quit your pathetic Catholic bashing crusade."

Of course, I am not "bashing" the pope or the RC church. I have only said what other Catholics have said concerning the pope. Whether their are 10 Christians or 10 million is God's business. The size of the Church doesn't matter. In fact, Romanism is in retreat all over the world. Take Latin America for example -- massive defections to the charismaniacs.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 17, 1999.

Mr. Jackson - You are obviously a man who will not accept the reality of the spiritual world. Your " arguments " are now being viewed for what they are being a holier then Thou attitude.

You have come face to face with Our Deposit Of Faith being Christ started the Church and remarkably has not fallen through two thousand years with the new milliniun offering even more adherents to the Church Christ established.

Your upbringing in your " church " I liken to a form of Neo-Religion which in as little as 500 years is showing itself as crude for lack of words.

An offering by myself and others to come join us has fallen on angry ears. Anger always hides a pain and a need. What are they in you? We will always be there for you but surely will no accept your shallowness.

Catholism is a deep spritual religion having all the elements pertaining to a way of life leading to peace on earth. Again come join us and be free. +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 17, 1999.

Steve,

A side note about the "Reformation." Dig a little deeper, around the time of "pope" "Innocent" III and a few ones before (800's -late 1100's). Luther seems to have been the just the last major break to a process that lasted and started several, several hundred years before him.

And David P. if you want to "drag" Luther throught the mud some more, don't forget 'your' history. Give both equal time.

The Search,

-- Jamey (jcreel@hscmail.com), August 18, 1999.

Jamey - Your back in the stuff immediatly again after an absence. Our hope is to stop the stone throwing and stick to Catholic dialogue this being a Catholic site. Please do not attempt to drag it backwards as in the past. We are growing and movinng forward as a group.

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 18, 1999.

Jamey,

Glad to see you back. You have some questions to answer in the Immortal Souls and JW thread.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 18, 1999.

Steve,

Like you indicated earlier with regard to yourself, I tire of this forum. I have some major writing projects due at the end of next month, so I really do have to limit my time. You're a good opponent, albeit sorta a one-note-song kinda guy. Ok, let's have at it one more time...

<< Well, I commend you for sticking with orthodox catholicism. >>

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate this. There are genuine difficulties being a Catholic in this particular day and age. Frankly I think all of Christendom is seriously disfunctional right now. But Scripture and Church history show that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ and He will not forsake her. So for me it is like those Apostles who were scandalized by our Lord's teaching about the necessity of eating His Body and drinking His Blood; He asked them if they too would leave Him. But they realized that there was no place else for them to go, despite their shock and scandal at His words. So for me there is literally nowhere else to go. Here I stand, I can do no other ;-D.

<< I have said it before & will say it again: Martin Luther was a great man of God and the Reformation was the work of God. >>

Given the incredibly evil thoughts deployed by Dr. Luther above, I think that this seriously calls your judgment of godly character into question. How can you just wink at such abominations? How can you come in here complaining about the Holy Father praying for peace with non-Christians and then defend (or at least excuse) the viciousness of some of Luther's words and actions? I don't understand that at all.

<< Apparently, Luther's bad language disqualifies him from being a man of God. However, Dave thinks that, e.g., certain Renaissance popes who had concubines and illegitimate children were the infallible spokesmen of God! >>

There are several distinct differences here. First, the "bad popes" did not actually teach anything for the univeral Church so on a practical level there is no question of their infallibility being called into question. You do know the conditions in which we believe the pope is infallible, don't you?

Second, infallibility adheres to the popes in the exercise of their office as prime ministers of the King of Kings. If God chooses to reveal infallible truth using His legimately appointed ministers in spite of their gross sin then at least there is good Biblical precidence for that. Cf. the prophecy of the high priest Caiaphas, given at a time when he was doing the most evil thing that any human could possibly do -- handing over the Son of God to be crucified.

But Martin Luther held no such legitimate office and so, if he comes to us claiming to be some kind of reformer or prophet (in the lesser sense of that word), then we can only judge him based on the holiness of his character, his Christ-likeness (cf. a St. Francis of Assisi or a St. Charles Borromeo or a St. Francis de Sales). Luther loses big time.

<< My goal is to preach the Good News! >>

And, as we will see if I can free up enough time to respond directly on the justification thread, your version of the "good news" was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Church history. Funny that folks should be so lost without "godly" Martin Luther. Is your "good news" really that we can "fornicate and commit murder 1000 times per day" and still be "saved"? Is your "good news" that we should commit a little sin everytime we are tempted, just to taunt the Devil? Is your "good news" that we don't need to pray and fast in order to avoid sin, since we can just as easily indulge in it ("plenty of women and maidens") and still be forgiven?

I'll have to look up and post here the quote from Martin Luther later in his life lamenting how much worse the morals of the German people had gotten after they had thrown off the "yoke" of Papist "tyrrany". That's an eye-opener, to be sure. And no wonder. License to sin is no good news.

<< My Church was started by Jesus Christ and is maintained by His Spirit. Incidentally, in Redemptor Hominis, JP II never refers to the church as the "Roman Catholic Church." >>

Like all good proof-texting, context-wrenching Protestants you are fixated on a few documents/quotes by the Holy Father wrenched out of context. I started a response on Fr. Dormann's shifty, schismatic book but alas, that will probably go undone as well. Suffice to say that you are a true disciple of Fr. "Take 'em out of context" Dormann.

The Pope has made it quite clear what he considers the Church to be. (See Crossing the Threshold of Hope on the Web, for example). Do you really think it's fair to take a single document, or even a few selective quotes from a single document, and hold them up as if they represent a man's entire opinion on every matter?

Oh, and by the way, Vatican II never refers to your church as a church. According to Vatican II you belong to an ecclesial community, not a church. So the Council doesn't flatten necessary distinctions as much as you thought, eh?

<< No, but you will follow a man who believes that anti-Christian Moslems are his "brothers in God," and Islam is "God's way." >>

Actually, I don't think that the Holy Father believes this about "anti-Christian" Moslems. That's just the point, isn't it? You have such animous toward non-Christians that you believe that they are all operating out of bad faith and are wallowing in perpetual evil. So all Moslems are anti-Christians, by definition. We notice that that is precisely the doctrinal position of your ecclesial community; man without Christ can do nothing but evil. That is rotten theology. The Catholic Church understands that God gives prevenient grace to all men and that some respond; so the Holy Father reaches out to non- Christians with the charitable assumption that they are operating out of good will as well. Just like St. Paul did with the Athenians.

<< What is the theological precedence for Assisi, Dave? Isn't that an innovation? >>

I believe it is an innovation of practice (which is not itself doctrine) and that is why I personally am uncomfortable with what took place there. That is my prerogative as a Catholic; I don't have to agree with the Pope's judgment or actions. Do you actually understand what we mean by papal infallibility, Steve? Are you really interested in understanding our position? I get the feeling that you're not, but if so then just let me know.

<< Now, Dave says that protestants are "mini-popes." Let's see: Dave has already indicated that: (1) he does not approve of Assisi; (2) he does not approve of alter girls (and I assume women serving communion); and (3) he does not have the same view of Luther and protestantism that JP II has. So Dave is his own Pope! For example, JP II has said that Assisi finds its justification in Vatican II. I guess Dave and not JP II is supposed to tell us what Vatican II means. >>

Which of the matters you pointed to above are matters of faith? None of them. Which are matters of dogma? None. Where has it ever been taught in the Catholic Church that I cannot disagree with the Pope with respect to propriety of his actions? Nowhere.

The most basic knowledge of Church history shows great saints correcting, chiding, even rebuking Popes. They are not God and so they are not omniscient. Popes are not impeccable; they sin and they have lapses of judgment.

You don't understand our faith, Steve. You've been reading too many Jack Chick comics and Lorraine Boettner books. Do you want to understand our position or just bash the Pope?

<< Of course, I am not "bashing" the pope or the RC church. I have only said what other Catholics have said concerning the pope. >>

Actually, you did not bother to tell us that Fr. Dormann's book is printed by an SSPX press, a group that is in schism with the Catholic Church and whose members are all excommunicated. Why did you leave out that little detail, Steve?

<< Whether their are 10 Christians or 10 million is God's business. The size of the Church doesn't matter. >>

In general I agree with this statement.

<< In fact, Romanism is in retreat all over the world. >>

But this is quite false, although I'm sure you wish it to be true. The Catholic faith is in decline in the West; it is exploding in the East. Soon Asians and Africans will be reevangelizing Europe and the United States with the Catholic Christian faith.

<< Take Latin America for example -- massive defections to the charismaniacs. >>

True enough. But we've seen whole countries defect from the Catholic Faith before; Martin Luther's revolt drove several countries away from historic Christianity and King Henry's adultery lost all of England to Catholicism. Still, the Faith continues apace. Church history always helps one keep perspective on this temporal fluxes. And of course, as Cardinal Newman said, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 18, 1999.

Here's another introduction to the extent to which Dr. Luther emulated our loving Lord and Savior:

http://www.trincomm.org/research/retrieve.cfm?RecNum=1145

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 18, 1999.

"Actually, you did not bother to tell us that Fr. Dormann's book is printed by an SSPX press, a group that is in schism with the Catholic Church and whose members are all excommunicated. Why did you leave out that little detail, Steve?"

I don't whether the members of the SSPX are excommunicated or not. All I know is that they decided to translate the book and publish it. Good for them. Now, I do not believe that Fr. Dormann is a member of that group or that he has been excommunicated. I have checked his citations to the extent I have been able to, and I do not see any evidence that he has taken JP II's writings out of context.

This much is clear to me. JP II says a great many things that, taken literally, contradict traditional RC teaching. For example, his near complete opposition to the death penalty, his belief that Moslems are "brothers in God," his support for alter girls, his participation in joint religious events such as Assisi, etc. Now, to say that these are only questions of practice and not doctrine is an attempt to deny the man's novel teaching. Take Assisi for example: Pius XII said in Mortalium Animos that a pope could not preside over joint religious meetings and that such things would destroy the foundations of the faith. Doesn't this sound like a "doctrinal" issue then? Let me give another example: JP II's reference to non-Christians as "brothers." Bishop Michael Fitzgerald, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican has said that one cannot overlook the "novelty of the language." So even when the Vatican says the JP II is a religious innovator, Dave refuses to believe it!

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 18, 1999.

What an abomination this whole thread. Don't you both (David and Steve) feel ashamed of yourself? What are you both fighting over: words that you don't understand, the truth that you have not yet found, or just your own miserable point of view? Why don't you both read Mark7:1-23. It should help you to come to your senses.

-- luis gasser (l_gasser@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Steve,

Once again, you leave your conclusions unspoken. You claim John Paul II is an innovator, therefore......we are not told what to conclude from this. This is why I call you a basher. You didn't come here asking with any degree of humility how Catholics would view these things, or how we might harmonize them. You just came in blasting away and continue do so. I have a really good essay on the Assisi even by a humble and intelligent priest showing from principles established by the great St. Thomas Aquinas how the Assisi event violated no moral law of the Church. But I fear it would be wasted on you; even though it is written with great sensitivity you would find some way to twist what he says and use it against us. Why bother trying to reason with you?

Back to the actual topic of this thread: Why are you not ashamed to belong to a group named after such a vile individual who could say the things I have documented him saying? Why does John Paul II calling together people to pray for peace bother you so much while Martin Luther causing the deaths of 100,000 peasants and inciting violence against Jews doesn't?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

the discourse on this thread has been most interesting. it is abundantly clear that much time has been spent in research to ballast points of discussion. in listening and reading to some of the pronouncments of jp ll, one observation stands out. the man in a practiced politician, if a pronouncement is made that offends the moslem, who will be the victims of their ire, if the jew becomes enraged, the end will never be heard. if the protestant becomes irate, attacks will be unceasing. the man walks on eggshells when it comes being the spokesman and head of the church. let us not also forget, there is the eastern rite. pax domini.

-- juan (declined@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

"Once again, you leave your conclusions unspoken. You claim John Paul II is an innovator, therefore......we are not told what to conclude from this. This is why I call you a basher."

So: you and I agree that JP II is an innovator by calling Moslems "brothers in God"? By saying he is an innovator, I am pointing out that in areas that one would consider "doctrinal" (and not merely "practice"), the pope has a position that runs counter to the traditional catholic teaching and catholics are right to take offense. When JP II says Islam is "God's way," I infer from this that he has a much more favorable view of non-Christian religions than previous popes. I think this is a reasonable interpetation of his writings on this issue.

"You didn't come here asking with any degree of humility how Catholics would view these things, or how we might harmonize them. You just came in blasting away and continue do so. I have a really good essay on the Assisi even by a humble and intelligent priest showing from principles established by the great St. Thomas Aquinas how the Assisi event violated no moral law of the Church. But I fear it would be wasted on you; even though it is written with great sensitivity you would find some way to twist what he says and use it against us. Why bother trying to reason with you?"

This is unfair -- I am trying to understand your position. Why don't you post this article? Now, Aquinas was not a pope and I would think that Pius XII can be trusted for a binding exposition of the RC position: "[I]t is clear that the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these [ecumenical] assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give such enterprises their encouragement or support." (Mortalium Animos)

"Back to the actual topic of this thread: Why are you not ashamed to belong to a group named after such a vile individual who could say the things I have documented him saying? Why does John Paul II calling together people to pray for peace bother you so much while Martin Luther causing the deaths of 100,000 peasants and inciting violence against Jews doesn't?"

Luther said and did things that bother me. I do not think he caused the death of 100,000 peasants. So far as inciting violence against Jews, this is incredible coming from a supporter of an institution that has done more than any other (for over 1000 years) to persecute Jews!

Of course, I think Christians should pray for peace. I do and I hope the Pope and Roman Catholics do. The question is should the Pope encourage prayers for peace in a way that implies religious indifferentism and that all religions are equally viable ways to peace. I think we both agree that JP II gave this impression at Assisi & that this was a mistake.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Hello scholarly theologians! (Dave and Steve) How about answering my questions "churches of revelations" on Aug. 8th. Maybe if you can answer a question from an unschooled idiot like me you might be able to understand your own disscussion on this thread.

Obviously you both can not be right, but maybe you are both wrong?

A Jew or a Seventh day adventist would have both of you joining forces to throw stones at them!

When you humble yourself and hear or read the word of God and let God's law govern you and not man's you will have peace. Try going back to the basics guys and not seek a prideful and worldly kingdom but one in heaven!

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), August 19, 1999.

Where did John Paul II call Islam "God's way"? I think I vaguely remember you citing something to this effect but I can't find it.

<< Of course, I think Christians should pray for peace. I do and I hope the Pope and Roman Catholics do. The question is should the Pope encourage prayers for peace in a way that implies religious indifferentism and that all religions are equally viable ways to peace. I think we both agree that JP II gave this impression at Assisi & that this was a mistake. >>

Steve, I'm still trying to locate texts of the Holy Father's speeches given before and during the Assisi event. I'm told that he rather carefully explained what he was doing and why. Until then, I can merely say that it appears to me that he exercised poor judgment. That is not easy for me to say, as I love him dearly as my spiritual father. But that is how I see it now. Does it go any further than that. No. Does it make him a modernist? Of course not, and I successfully deflected your charges in that arena and will be happy to do so again. It there any Catholic dogma at stake here? Nope again. The Catholic Church has stated quite clearly under what conditions papal teaching is official and binding. And as I have said before, the Catholic Church has never claimed that popes are impeccable.

<< Luther said and did things that bother me. >>

I'm glad to hear this.

<< I do not think he caused the death of 100,000 peasants. >>

I have provided the evidence that he did. Why do you deny it. Even Protestant historians agree that he alternately incited them to revolt, then spurred on the nobility against them. As Roland Bainton says in his biography "Luther": That one sentence of Luthers, `smite, slay, and stab, brought him obloquy never to be forgotten. He was reproached by the peasants as a traitor to their cause. Luther himself took responsibility for it. Why are you trying to absolve him from blame? And why would you belong to a group named after such an individual?

<< So far as inciting violence against Jews, this is incredible coming from a supporter of an institution that has done more than any other (for over 1000 years) to persecute Jews! >>

The ridiculous nature of this statement, in view of the real history of Jewish persecution, is so incredible that I won't dignify it with a response. As I suspected, you have been reading too many Jack Chick comic books. ;-)

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

"In today's world, it is more important than ever that men and women of faith, assisted by God's grace, should strive for true holiness. Self-centered tendencies . . . threaten to turn mankind from the path of goodness and holiness which God has intended for all of us. The countless number of good people around the world -- Christians, Muslims, and others -- who quietly lead lives of authentic obedience, praise, and thanksgiving to God and selfless service of their neighbor, offer humanity a genuine alternative, 'God's way,' to a world which would otherwise would be destroyed in self-seeking, hatred, and struggle." [To Participants in the Symposium on Holiness in Christianity and in Islam, 5/9/85 in John Paul II and Interreligious Dialogue, eds. Sherwin and Kasimow.]

In addition, the Pope stated the following:

"I deliberately address you as brothers; that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. [huh?] But we are especially brothers in God, who created us, for whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs." [An Address to Moslems in the Philippines, 2/20/1981, at p. 217.]

Notice that the Pope believes Moslems are not simply brothers in the sense that we are all created by God  he believes they are his spiritual brothers! Now it appears to me that in these statements (and others), the Pope considers Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to be three valid religions in the eyes of God. Dave Palm may tell is that this isn't so. Well, maybe it isn't so. But Dave has denied that there is anything unclear about the Pope's statements.

Concerning the RC Church's endless persecution of Jews, if it isn't so why do the Pope, Cardinal O'Connor and other catholics keep cow- towing and apologizing to Zionist front-groups like the ADL and the AJC about the church's mistreatment of the Jews?

As to why I belong to a group that names itself after the "vile" Martin Luther -- I would like to know why you hurl insults at this man when the Pope never does. So far as I know, the Pope generally speaks favorably of Luther. In addition, the Pope is encouraging the RC Church to engage in a joint document concerning justification with generally liberal and modernist "Lutherans." This is quite interesting. Dave tells us that the LCMS teaches "heresy every weekend," but his spiritual father has a high regard for liberal Lutherans. Again, Dave feels free to play pope whenever it comes to attacking protestants.

Concerning Dave's attacks on Luther, let me give on example. Dave quotes statements from Luther's Table Talk in which he denigrates Moses and The Ten Commandments. Of course Dave doesn't tell us that Luther placed a section on The Ten Commandments in his catechisms (see, e.g., Luther's Small Catechism). Now doesn't this indicate his high regard for The Ten Commandments in the life of the Christian?

By the way, I have never seen a Jack Chick comic book.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 20, 1999.

David,

Your site makes it sound as though all the Germans were Protestants. This site just lumps all of them together, and ignores there were many Catholics fighting on the wrong side.

World war II was a very sad history in human life. And Im am not defending Hitlers actions. They were indeed wrong!

WW2 as most of the rest was fought over power and greed. The excuse" this site implies that Hitler used towards Jews is BS! His own grandmother Im told was a Jew. His was a grasp for greed.

Look at the times. All these German people did not like Hitler. Many of Germanys greatest generals thought he was an idiot. Rommel tried to kill him. Rommel paid with his life, be shot or suicide (the honorable thing). He chose the latter.

German people do have a inner passion that is hard to control. Many let it go. I know, because both sides of my family have German blood.

But, to blame a war of this magnitude on one group of people, because they were backed into a wall is also wrong! Read history. See what Frame, England, US, Germany, Russia, etc all did to one another during the centuries before. Read about the crusades. Not all were in Jerusalem. Especially read what happened to Germany after WW1.

Look at what president Wilson promised Germany after WW1 and see what Germany got. The seeds for WW2 were sown in 1918. Hitler was just very good at growing weeds.

Money is Swiss bank accounts did not get there by accident. There were greedy people on both sides.

I believe you are looking at this through the perfect glasses of hindsight. The things that happened to the Jews in the camps were not known until the 40's. Heck, even most of the Germans fighting didnt even know it. One of my college professors grew up in post war Germany. He put this type of hatred behind him.

They were though to be just alower class as the Germans had been after WW1. Similar to what the British were doing over the world before 1900 and after. And, the US to the Indians and blacks. Mass genocides. But no one in the world seem to care about those as much - anymore. We can now forget those and move on, right? History goes back a long way :>). And, its dome to repeat if we do forgot the reasons as we are doing.

One century the Americans are fighting England for generations. The next were all best buddies. Lets get those evil Germans. *sarcasm*

See the pattern? David P., your ( I think it was you?) statements about Henry of England falls into this category. The happenings of that time didnt just appear in the rebellion against the church. The reformation did not start in 1517 with Luther. He wasnt even excommunicated till 1524, I think it was. The discontent with the church began many centuries before. See what Rome did to England a 600-1000 years ago. Who was in control then?

Luther was not trying, as I understand his begining "thesis" to overthrow the pope. He was trying to correct an also WRONG practice of "indulgences." Paying for the clergy to "pray for the dead." No matter what we say of his becoming, he was right on this,imho.

Because of one of my hobbies I spoke with a man whos grandfather was a faithful Catholic German who was killed during the war. He surely didnt have a clue of the madness going on. He prayed not to die on his anniversary in a letter to his wife. He didnt, but two weeks later he was. His story was heart felt. He had a heart felt faith that at least one moment in his life, then he gave in, imho, to the devil by killing others.

Then look at where the gas came from. It was invented in Briton. They were not guiltless either. The US only got involved in Europe when Germany kept sinking the money supply line, imho. Yes, I also had family that fought in it. Thankfully my immediate family (except my step grandad) has not fought in a war since the Civil War. And, for good reason, 2 of my namesakes gggreat uncles died in it - uselessly. Both in northern prison camps of starvation/exposure. And every body thinks that only Andersonville in Georgia was bad. And, my gggg-grandad died because of it, even though he didnt fight in it (4 of his 6 sons did - my gggrandad was one of the others).

These type of people in Europe and elsewhere have been fighting one another for centuries before/after Christ and with/without the name Church. It is not going to end until...

The real questions are, do you join it or not? Do you bless it or forbid it? Is there really such a thing as a just war in human terms?

The Search from the floor (heh, Jean :>), no I am not as old as you),Jamey

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 22, 1999.

According to what I was taught and according to the bible, Jesus said to Peter that he (Peter) was the rock that he was building his church on. Just one church- the Catholic church. And Jesus said it would last for all time. It's still here. Jesus never said that all of his church leaders would be totally excellant people--after all, they're still human. No where in the bible or anywhere else, does Jesus say that he'll build other churches using Henry VIII or Martin Luther or anybody else. They had a falling out with the Catholic church because they couldn't get their own way, so like small, angry children, they picked up their toys and went elsewhere. Was Luther a heretic? You better believe he was, and so were all the rest. Jesus founded the church and made the rules. He never said anybody could change them if keeping them got too hard or if they didn't like them. Steve, do you know what the word Protestant means? Look it up. I think "thou doest protest too much." If you were so content in your faith in Martin Luther and his church, you wouldn't be on a Catholic site arguing so much. People who are safe and secure in their faith don't need to argue the point to death with others. Why don't you go on a Luthern site and enlighten some of them who may be confused on some issues of your faith? Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), August 24, 1999.

Jamey, you have some questions to answer in another thread ("JWs and Immortal Souls").

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Ellen - I applaud you for the direct confrontting of the fundamentalists on the site. I have attempted using different appraoches for a long while to do so.

Having spoken to my Spiritual Director she has expressed an aspect of what you have stated. WE are unfortunately stuck with this crowd as some on the site enjoy this type of thing feeling a form of narcistic joy. +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 24, 1999.

I am really amazed on how much time and effort you Dave and Steve are able to spend here! I almost could not have time even to read everithing just in this thread! (I confess I skipped some material).

Being the Catholic "side" so well represented here by Dave, I would only like to add one or two comments.

Steve, its no intelligent response to say that the Church has had many faulty Popes. Those are no matter for pride for us Catholics, rather they are very embarrasing indeed. I think that the arguably "worst" Pope we have had, Alexander "Borgia" VI is not presented by any catholic as a "great man of God", "reformer", etc. , as you does with Luther.

As a matter of fact, I may tell here something from my own experience. Being raised as a Catholic, I allways belived in the Papal Infalibility and the Holiness of the church , but I confess I was a very difficult concept to grasp from an intellectual point of view; something to be believed by faith, but no to reason much about if I was to remain outside of trouble. I thought it somehow difficult to explain to non-catholics (or rather to relapse catholics, as I live in a country where almost everybody is only nominaly catholic) how the church could be Holy and Divine and have such hideous ministers. Of course I argued on the traditional line of Aquinas4 "casta meretrix", that is, it being divine but made up of sinners etc.

But one day I had a "revelation" (or I should rather say an "intellectual insight") that runs somewhat like this: there is no need to "prove" the divine origin of the church "in spite of" its awful sinners (be they bishops, popes, priests, nuns or lays); the proof of its dininity is exactly that *with* those awful catholics, it could mantain its doctrine (both dogmatic and moral) for 2000 years without ONLY ONE change in them !!! I challenge everyone to point out another organisation in history which can boast this record!! Any human organization, despite the best intentions of its founders, sooner or later changes its "creed" to satisfy their current leaders. If the Catholic Church was a human thing, a pope like Alexandre Borgia would certainly have "changed the faith" to accomodate his personal scandalous behaviour (which, incidentally, was exactly what Luther, Henry VIII and many other "reformers" did). But he didn4t. The Holy Ghost "grasp" of the Roman Church is so tight that this kind of thing NEVER happened in 2000 years of history, even under pontificates held by very very questionable prelates, which is something unheard of in any other (human) institution.

As for a "mild" account (very christian and undestanding) of Luther4s et.al. biografies, I recomend Daniel Rops4 "History of the Church of Christ". Although he is catholic, he is a very respected historian and his text lack any pamphetarian or "bashing" character.

pax!

-- Atila Belloquim (atila@choose.com.br), September 05, 1999.

Yes.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 07, 1999.

I would like to pose a question about Martin Luther that no one is able to answer . Many years ago when I was in seminary studying for the priesthood I heard someone-perhaps a Lutheran theologue say that Luther in his last months was greatly depressed at situation then prevailing and residing in his home town (where he died) was reconciled to the Catholic Church by some Franciscan monks in the area who showed a great deal more of the Divine mercy than did the Augustinians or the people of Wittenberg, if the truth be known ,to his wife & family once he died. Is there any truth to any of this and if so where could one find citations/sources/etc. Thanks in advance.

-- n/a (gdvw@catholic.org), November 30, 2000.

n/a

There is no truth to it.

Here is how historian (and convert to Catholicism), Dr. Warren Carroll the founder of Christendom College, explains it:

"Tragically, no. A lot of Catholics have heard this false story and repeat it because they want to believe it. After a heavy meal Luther had a stroke and died, with no sign of repentance, as explained and documented in my volume, 'The Cleaving of Christendom.'"

SN

-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 30, 2000.

So, I'm wondering if this Catholic with the serious problem with Luther has ever read Melanchthon's Apology of the Augsburg Confession. He essentially proves using Scripture, Early Fathers, and rather sound reason, that the material essence doctrine of sola fide is indeed found all over the writings of the early church...even in certain medieval writers, although it was never as explicitly defined as the Reformers defined it.

By the way, I'm a Lutheran, and being Lutheran doesn't mean "I agree with everything Luther ever said." For instance, his statements on Jews, Mary, etc...the problem with Catholics (and indeed other Protestants) is they think Luther was our pope, and that we regard him as infallible. We don't.

Notice most people don't bring up Augustine's emphatic defense of the persecution/execution/forced conversion of heretics and heathens, but we still think he was a great theologian.

-- josh strodtbeck (fishstik45@yahoo.com), September 16, 2001.

Ellen, I read your post on8/24/99, and I enjoyed reading it! In my opinion you did a great job! David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), September 17, 2001.

The last time I checked the LUTHERAN Church was not riddled or enabling with pedophiles nor was the clergy suffering from AIDS at a rate many times higher than the incidence found in the general population. Before assaulting the person or legacy of Martin Luther, kindly review the checkered historical record of the Papacy which has had more than its share of criminals, psychopaths and deviants. Martin Luther empowered Christians by helping make the Scriptures available to the common man in their native tongue- a crime punishable by death by the Catholic Church at the time who did not want to see their exclusive franchise eroded. Was he a flawed and often erring product of his times?..of course but Lutherans do not worship Martin Luther.

-- Frank Speaker (m.lutheran@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Frank writes:

"The last time I checked the LUTHERAN Church was not riddled or enabling with pedophiles nor was the clergy suffering from AIDS at a rate many times higher than the incidence found in the general population."

Are you saying that the Lutheran pastors don't have similar rates of pedophiles and homosexuals with Aids? Please...

This is all off the topic. The fact remains, Martin Luther was a heretic for (among other things) wanting to remove parts of the New Testament that were inconsistent with his views. He also manipulated translations by adding words to the Bible in order to clarify his interpretation of the Bible. Sounds like two things that any card-carrying "Sola Scriptura" Protestant would call heretical. How can this be acceptable?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 12, 2002.

Frank

You are terribly wrong in stating Luther made the Scriptures available to all. NEVER in the history of the Church was it true that the faithful had no access to the scriptures. The scriptures were always free to all to read. After all it was written for all to read. Furthermore we have heard the Scriptures at every Mass since the time of Christ. He did in fact speak from the scriptures to all he saw, and he told his Apostles to do the same.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 12, 2002.

Hello and Gods Peace to All. I am not going to engage in a dipute of which Church is truer or which leaders more or less infalliable.I believe that Jesus did Tell Peter that he would be the rock on which he built his church. I do not believe that Jesus named it the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I believe that he was referring to the brotherhood of christianity as a whole. I believe that he was referring to those who faithfully followed him (Jesus Christ) and his holy words, not people who follow very falliable human beings. The silliest thing and the least like Christ of all is this debating over which church has the most faults. Excuse me boys, (and girls)both churches have been guilty since there conceptions of having despots and mainiacs at the controls. That is the whole problem with religionss. We allow human beings in our midst. shame on us. where that we all as Jesus, pure and holy and with out sin. now I come from a mixed home, Luthern and Catholic, hard as I have looked in both churches various books and bibles I can find only references to one perfect man. When I read history of both churches, written by themselves and by each other I am amazed any one would follow either religion. O but thankfully we do have the holy bible and it does say man is falliable and redeemed only through the blood of Jesus. So I guess there is hope for all of us, despite the sins of our forefathers,But only through the one true church,Jesus Christ. P.S. All your agruments are quite interesting and prove only that you are both quite bound in your own ignorance of true faith and only to justification through the name of a building. Whichever is on the outside of the one you are attending. These type of discussions do not for conversion in beliefs and much to diverting of beliefs. Beliefn in the saving grace of God to belief in the saving grace of men and their works.

-- Tami Marsolek (jcmarsolek@aol.com), September 26, 2002.

Hi Tami,

Jesus most certainly did institute a church; one in which grievances could be brought and settled. He states that "if your brother sins against you, go to him in private, then take two or three witnesses, then take it to the church." (Loose paraphrase) I'm afraid it's just not as simple as "you, Jesus and the Bible" as you suggest.

Of course, saving grace is received through a surrendered life to Christ our redeemer. No one disputes that. The topic of this thread is Martin Luther, not "how we are saved." Perhaps you meant to post your message on a different thread.

But anyway, Christ did institute a real, functional, institutional church, a church with authority; the question is "which one?"

Gail

P.S. BTW, coming onto a forum and telling people of their "ignorance" is not very becoming, and certainly wreaks of a self-righteous spirit!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 26, 2002.

Martin Luther was not a heretic. Even he himself said that his goal was not to split the church, but to correct things that he felt were contrary to the church. He did not want to part from the church and did everything he could to show the flaws in some old teachings which he discovered after intense study. He often questioned himself trying to bel;ieve the church, but realized that nothing was going to be corrected. The bible was available for all to read, yet it was not of much use to many people. At that time, the Roman Catholic Church discouraged common people and people not of the church to read the bible. They were told that they were not intelligent enough, nor were they given by God the same understanding as the clergy when it came to doctrine. Unfortunately, this was not the only thing that held people back from reading the bible. Up until this time the average man could not read well in their own language, much less latin, which was the language of nearly every bible in print. On top of that, the only bibles that were around were mostly hand written and those that were printed were incredibly expensive. Most were locked to tables in libraries which were also few and far between. Not accessible to most of the public.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

ssalzwede@nelhs.org,

I won't go into all of your statements. But one of the statements is interesting:

"Most [Bibles] were locked to tables in libraries which were also few and far between."

I have also heard that all books were locked to tables (or something) in those days. I suppose that when the only means of copying a book was by hand, books were quite valuable back then. If a book was stolen, how long do you think it would take to copy another?

How long do you think it would take you to write the entire Bible by hand? I wouldn't even want to imagine the amount of time it would take. Further, I would not be able to imagine what I would feel if I had carefully copied the entire Bible by hand, only to have it stolen. It would probably feel something like having a hard drive crash and lose all of my work. Thank goodness for Zip drives and CDR drives!

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 28, 2002.

Small correction. I wrote:

"I have also heard that all books were locked to tables..."

Well, I suppose I meant "many books."

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 28, 2002.

It puzzles me why they would lock the phone book to the public phone? Don't they trust us? He He :)

Mateo,

You said that you wondered how much time it took to copy the Bible by hand. I wonder how painful it was! I remember in grade school - before computers were required - writing out all my homework, etc. I STILL have calluses on my fingers!

Back on the topic -

ss... wrote, "Even he himself said that his goal was not to split the church, but to correct things that he felt were contrary to the church."

Yet why is it that St. Francis of Assisi was able to reform the Church so well without leaving it? Why is it that so many great Saints could reform without leaving. Did Luther not have the patience to wait for God? It seems to me that Luther's insistance on wanting an answere NOW, rather than when God wanted it, is what made him a heretic. And he came to realize this when the fruit of his impatience was 100 or so splinter groups by the time of his death. He didn't become a heretic for his knowledge of the abuses that were occuring in the Church, or his will to reform it. What made Luther a heretic was the fact that he couldn't recognize that it was the errors of man and not the Church which he was enraged about. Luther didn't accept the Church as the Body of Christ, which Christ promised would not be prevailed against by the gates of hell. Instead Luther did what many are doing now, that is, calling the individual persons of the Church "the Church". And Luther couldn't wait for God to do the reforming through him, rather, he wanted to take it upon himself.

Remember, Patience is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 28, 2002.

Yes, Luther was angry with human error. The Catholic church was instituted by man and not God. 'The Church' was instituted by God, but it was a union of faith of believers who believed all of Christ's teachings in its truths and purities. This was not a particular denomination that called itself baptist, catholic, or anglican. He did understand this. It was the fact that human error was distorting God's word in the catholic church, and teaching them as though they were instituted by God.

Acts 8 (the church as a body of believers) 2On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

At this time 'The Church' made many decisions, not according to what the bible said, but what the pope felt that God had given him the right to make. This, is where human error was first formed. God did not elect the pope as the head of the church. Man made the pope the head of the church. Electing the pope as a 'overseer' is not in itself wrong, but treating it as a God-ordained position that allowed (s) him to make doctrinal changes. This also is human error.

Luther had difficulties within himself about his salvation. He knew that according to the doctrines of the Catholic church he would never be good enough to win favor in God's sight. With this he also studied the Bible, both new and old testement. With this study he found that the old testement laws were null because they had already been fulfilled by Christ's perfect life and death. He concluded that because Christ previously fulfilled the law all were made righteous through faith. Here God says:

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

With this passage and others Luther realized that the selling of indulgences was not needful and work righteuosness was incorrect and unneccessary because of Christs death. (Good Works are only a fruit of faith.) Because Luther knew this from what the bible said he wanted this to be known by all people so that they too would have the assurance that they, through faith in Christ Jesus would have the promise of salvation. That no doubt abut a persons eternal life would be present. When he presented this to the Roman Catholic Church it was taken as a threat.

I do not want to say that the church is the same now as it was then, but then there was much human error involved. Church positions were handed out in return for money and the sale of indulgences were initially to complete projects within the church that were expensive. Luther was not trying to undermine the church in any way. He loved it, and just wanted what was in error with the bible to be corrected. That was all.

Patience. Yes, I understand what patience is. But then, I also know that when the bible has a message of saving grace and that a spiritual burden had been taken off of myself I too would want others to know about it. Maybe slow changes are better, but when it comes to the core of ones faith, it is hard to be patient and let things just 'go'. You feel the neccessity to go out and tell all nations.

I do suppose that Dr. Martin Luther was a heretic in that he questioned the church's teachings. But also, everything he questioned was backed by the Bible.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

Quoting:

"He loved it, and just wanted what was in error with the bible to be corrected. That was all."

He wanted to remove some of the books of the Bible. It seems he valued his own theology over the Bible's message. Luther's love for the Bible disappeared whenever it contradicted his theology. See this link. If Luther wanted to remove whole books/letters of the Bible, I wouldn't characterize the removal of those books as correcting errors.

Luther denied the inspiration of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. With this precedent, Protestants are open to deny the authority of the entire Bible.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 28, 2002.

PS--You write:

"I do suppose that Dr. Martin Luther was a heretic in that he questioned the church's teachings."

I've never heard Luther referred to as "Dr." Do Protestants refer to him this way?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 28, 2002.

Yes, Martin Luther is refered to as Dr. because he is a doctor of theology, that was given to him by the Catholic church in his earlier years.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

Luther did not deny any books of the bible. He never denied the divine inspiration of the books of the new or old testement books. He did not subtract nor add any books, unlike the Catholics who do add the apocrapha.

You may attack Luther for his beliefs and teachings, but you should also use scripture to dispute what he says and to back yourself up. I do not believe that you have quoted anything biblical yet, and please do, it always helps. Quoting a book written by men and not God-breathed doesn't help to define what is correct according to scripture. Not only that you must also put things into context.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

Martin Luther did not deny any books of the bible, but he did deny how the Catholic Church interpreted them. This would go back to the teachings of justification by sanctification.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

I'm not surprised that he was educated in theology. I just have never heard him referred to as "Dr. Martin Luther," hence the question.

It's a shame that he espoused removing some of the books of the Bible. Do any Protestants currently stand with Luther when he attacks Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation?

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 28, 2002.

"Luther did not deny any books of the bible. He never denied the divine inspiration of the books of the new or old testement books. He did not subtract nor add any books, unlike the Catholics who do add the apocrapha."

Actually, if you do a bit of research, you will find that the Catholic Bible (the one with those "additional" 7 books) was compiled and used several hundred years prior to the Protestant Bible (the one with the "apocrapha" removed). It was only after the reformation, approximatly 1000 years after the compalation of the Bible, that those books were REMOVED by reformers who didn't thik that those particular books jived with their interpretations. And about that same time some of the other books were hacked up and added to also.

Please, ss..., research the origin of the Bible and you will find that it was the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th century (AD) that made the divinly inspired selections of the books of the Bible.

I urge you, for your own sake, to disregard what you've been taught about how the Catholic Church distroyed the Bible. If you research on your own, rather than taking some anti-Catholic's word, you will find the truth. I would also suggest reading some of Scott Hahns liturature.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 28, 2002.

Here is a LINK to some info on the Bible, and the reformation, etc.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 28, 2002.

This is interesting:

"The current version of the Roman Catholic Bible was determined by the Council of Hippo (AD 393). It was affirmed by the Council of Carthage (AD 397), Pope Innocent I (AD 405), Council of Carthage (AD 419), Ecumenical Council at Nicaea (AD 787), Ecumenical Council at Florence (AD 1442), Ecumenical Council at Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

When considering the origins of the Protestant New Testament we must remember that there was no enduring split from Catholacism until the middle 1500's, and the era of Martin Luther. Luther is not quite the rebel popularlized in legend, and it is questionable whether he actually nailed his 95 thesis to the door of the church in Wittenberg; however, he did mail a letter containing the thesis to his superiors on October 31, 1517.

In 1529 Martin Luther removed 11 books from the Catholic Bible, placing them into an appendix; (Baruch, Sirach, I & II Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation). This was the first version of the Protestant bible.

In 1611 King James of England created the next major version of the Protestant bible, returning returning four books into the canon -- Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation of John, and retaining the rest in an appendix. The appendicized books in the 1611 version of the King James Bible are sometimes called the Catholic Apocrypha.

In 1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society created another version of the Protestant New Testament by eliminating the Catholic Apocrypha all together. The third version of the Protestant New Testament contains 27 books and is the model for most modern translations.

Walking into a circa AD 300 church one might hear a reading from Shepherd of Hermas, or the Epistle of Barnabus. If a copy of third revision Protestant bible was shown to the early Christians they might be gravely disturbed, noting the number of books which were missing.

It is widely claimed that the Protestant bible (in its present version) is the infallible word of God. Does that claim exclude the first two revisions as not being of Divine origin? Murky waters are quickly entered into, unless one accepts the posit that some of the books in preceeding versions were the works of God, but others (which have since been removed) were not. That would also mean that until the 1827 version was introduced a genuine and infallible canon did not exist.

The infallable third revision claim necessarily introduces partialism, for the assertion cannot be valid unless it assumes previous versions were partially originated with God. Partialism allows the inquiring person to examine each book of the bible individually for authenticity and possible Divine origin, something we will do in great detail later in this work.

Presently there are three versions of the bible in use among Christians. The bible used by the eastern orthodox Catholic church contains 80 books, the Roman Catholic bible contains 78, and the third revision Protestant bible contains 66; (Appendix # contains a table of contents for each version)."

Found from THIS website.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 28, 2002.

"made the divinly inspired selections of the books of the Bible." The Catholic church can't just decide what is inspired and what is not. For a book of the bible to be divinely inspired it must have the promise of Jesus, and Jesus Christ as it's Core. Second it must be matched up to other books of the bible and they all must agree with one another.

I do agree that Martin Luther was not the one man who started, held out, or ended the rformation. Not all protestants take to heart what he says. Many of them even strongly disagree about his teachings.

My personal beliefs do not come from what I have been taught, but from what I have seen from studying the bible, reading many theological books, attending different churches and talking to ministers and priests. That is how I have gained my information. I am not entirely naive on the subjects of religion, yet I do know that I don't know everything.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

Just as there are different Catholic churches, there are different lutheran churches. Some are very liberal (ELCA), while others are incredibly conservative (ELS, WELS). This page will help explain where I am comming from:

http://www.wels.net/sab/about/ml-time.html

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

ss writes:

"Just as there are different Catholic churches, there are different lutheran churches."

Ss, there are not different Catholic Churches. There are some protestants who call themselves "Catholic," but they remain outside of the Catholic Church. There is one universal Catholic Church.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 28, 2002.

David

"So consumed was Martin Luther with his own sense of sinfulness that he proceeded to formulate a brand new doctrine never heard of in the history of the Church, justification by faith alone, and then set up a radical disjunction between this new "gospel" and the "law" which he defined as any moral command of God."

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Are you sure this is a "brand new" doctrine?

We could also reveal the history of the Pope's and Catholic teachings where they have changed over time, not always stating what they do today... We judge not man with man, but man with the Word of God. Who is sinnless or perfect? God!

Must I remind you that while, Luther was [evil for pulling away from the Catholic church], that the Catholic church was killing people for merely reading scripture in English. Are we to cast judgment of a dead man, and not the church?

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

Sorry, I did not read the entire page, but I did have to defend the scriptures...

Why such the uproar about a man? Man is sinful and is not perfect.

Let's lay out our lives and see if any would listen to us?

God bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 28, 2002.

Amen, Tim, we are not saved by works "of the law." Read your passages in context, and you will see they refer to the O.T. LAW.

But James says, Chap 2, vs. 24, You see that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith alone. (Can't get anymore succinct than that!)

Let's see what scripture defines as good works and what part they play in our judgment.

In Matthew, Chap 25:35, "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you invited Me in." You know the story. Then He goes on to separate the sheep from the goats based on what they did and did not DO!

Mat 16:27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his DEEDS."

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his DEEDS done in the body, according to what he has DONE, whether good or bad.

1 Peter 1:17 And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man's WORK, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their DEEDS.

Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has DONE!

I was taught, as a Protestant, that when the Lord looks upon us on judgment day, He will see nothing but His blood covering our sins. But that is not what scripture says, is it? We will be judged by our works -- the good kind of works -- not the dead kind. The kind of works done out of an overabundance of love in obedience to our gracious loving heavenly father! Faith without obedience is dead!

Many people, Tim, as you well know, go to the altar, say the magic prayer, and then there's nothing more for them to DO! It's already been done! All they have to do is bide their time for the rapture.

Scripture says we are saved by GRACE ALONE, through an active, living, obedient faith in God through Jesus Christ. Remember, the devils have faith too -- they believe -- and shudder!

Luther severed faith from works because he could not comprehend how the two could work together. But that really is like trying to separate the soul from the spirit -- can't be DONE!

Lots of love to you, my friend,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 28, 2002.

Gail

I believe that you misunderstand the judgments of God. There is not one judgment, but two - 1 for the saved, 1 for the unsaved.

"But James says, Chap 2, vs. 24, You see that a man is justified by works, and NOT by faith alone. (Can't get anymore succinct than that!)"

Let me again get you the verse concerning salvation:

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

We are saved through faith - not of works.

Eph 2:10 tell us about good works:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The good works come after salvation.

As for the 1st judgment:

Ro 14:10-12 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Again about saved people:

2co 5:7-10 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Re 7:9-10 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

No where does it claim that we will be sent to Hell for doing bad.

2nd judgment:

Re 20:11-15 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

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

We are to perform good works, because we are commanded by God to do so.

Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

----------

"I was taught, as a Protestant, that when the Lord looks upon us on judgment day, He will see nothing but His blood covering our sins. But that is not what scripture says, is it?"

If you don't believe that it is the blood of Jesus Christ that saves us and gives us entrance into Heaven - alone - then you contradict: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Does Christ need your help to save you? Then why did He die on the cross, if we can work our way to Heaven? That is what you are surposing by stating that we need to work also to get to heaven.

Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

----------

"the devils have faith too" - oh, really?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The devils have seen God, that is why they tremble.

---------

I believe you misunderstand Luther's seperation of works and faith.

We are saved by faith, to do good works. We do not do good works to receive salvation.

Check out Hebrews 11: By faith...

God Bless.

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 28, 2002.

Tim:

I believe that your last comment was correct. Luther taught that Justification led to Sanctification, not the other way around. We recieve faith and salvation, because of this we do good works. We do not do good works and then recieve faith.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

Matt:

There are different catholic churches. There is American Catholic which is far more liberal than the Roman Catholic Church (do not require celibacy of priests, etc.) and whose doctrinal beliefs are slightly different. There is the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, which also different. Yes, there are different Catholic churches.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 28, 2002.

Tim writes:

"We are saved by faith, to do good works."

Technically, we are saved by God's grace.

"Does Christ need your help to save you?"

Christ doesn't "need" our faith or our works. This is another strange thing about the faith/works argument--God saves us. A typical faith-alone argument is made (against "faith and works") that our good works cannot help save us because that would infer that Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary was incomplete without our works. If this is the case, then our own faith is equally incapable of helping save us because that would also infer that Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary was incomplete. I must confess that I've never been able to see the faith-alone argument as anything more than a theoretical word-game that has no meaning in the real world.

If anyone wants to be saved, the Bible says that he or she should have a living faith. Catchy phrases like, "I accept Jesus as my personal Savior" don't guarantee anything to anyone. The Bible is clear that "accepting Jesus" is a lot more work than just a verbal acknowledgement that Jesus is Lord.

1 John 2:1-6 - "My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world. The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Whoever says, "I know him," but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived."

"The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments."

Don't just claim to abide in Jesus. "Live as he lived." Jesus Himself states:

John 14:15 - "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

Jesus tells us that our action/inaction will be considered when he comes in judgment. See Matthew 25. His parables and His statements in general contradict the "faith-alone" argument.

I've asked in the past, and I'll ask now: why are Jesus' own words always absent from the "faith-alone" argument?

ssalzwede@nelhs.org (I wish you had an easy name) writes:

"There are different catholic churches. There is American Catholic which is far more liberal than the Roman Catholic Church (do not require celibacy of priests, etc.) and whose doctrinal beliefs are slightly different. There is the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, which also different. Yes, there are different Catholic churches."

First, there is not a separate American Catholic Church. Second, I doubt that you know what the exact celibacy requirements for priests are--you are wrong if you think that this rule is different for Americans, though. Third, there is no such thing as an "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church." There are Eastern Rites, but they only differ in their traditions (liturgy, language, pius practices). Because the term "church" has multiple meanings, you may find that groups of these Eastern Rites fall under "churches" (Antiochian, Byzantine, Alexandrian). These "Churches" all fall under the Catholic Church, and none of them may contradict the Universal Church in dogma/doctrine. Just to emphasize my point, my diocese probably has ~30-50 churches, but no one would claim that this means that there are 30-50 Catholic denominations in my diocese. The term "church" is used in different situations to mean different things--hence the confusion. :-)

In contrast, some groups of Protestant denominations are held together as loose confederations. There may be a general statement of faith, but they leave flexibility to differ on serious doctrinal questions. A good example would be the Anglican Communion, made up of the Episcopal Church, the Church of England, and others.

ssalzwede@nelhs.org writes:

"I believe that your last comment was correct. Luther taught that Justification led to Sanctification, not the other way around. We recieve faith and salvation, because of this we do good works. We do not do good works and then recieve faith."

Justification:

Matthew 12:36-37 - "'I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.'"

This is interesting, in the context of 1 John 2:4 -

Whoever says, "I know him," but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

We can fail to keep his commandments by sinful acts and sins of omission. Considering Jesus' top 2 commandments (Love God, Love neighbor), we should make sure we act on those commandments.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 28, 2002.

Hey Tim:

I realize there are two judgments. My point is, and even from the scriptures you posted, that Christians will be judged according to what they DO! Not by a mystical coat of righteousness that the Lord cannot see through. BTW, you still didn't explain how James, i.e., "we are not saved by faith alone," fits into your theology.

Yes, we have eternal life in Christ by His work on the cross, but the sanctification that happens in a believer's life is REAL, not mystical. Our carnal natures, unfortunately, do not die at baptism (most often). Through the process of sanctification , though, that carnal man dies to his lusts and self-will -- ONLY THROUGH GRACE! ONLY THROUGH GRACE are we sanctified and ONLY THROUGH GRACE shall we see the face of God! Luther taught a "mystical" righteousness.

Just for the record, Catholocism DOES NOT teach that you can work your way to heaven! You are saved by God's GRACE ONLY, through faith that is obedience, "working" through charity. GRACE ALONE!!! The gift of God won by Christ's passion on the cross! You keep making a false dichotomy between faith and works -- it is not faith OR works!

Faith, IN AND OF ITSELF, WITHOUT OBEDIENCE, is a dead faith, as scripture points out. Luther cannot explain James and the rest of the passages quoted above that COMMAND us to do good works! Look, if Abraham had not ACTED out his faith, his faith would have been, by itself, meaningless. Faith REQUIRES obedience. FAITH REQUIRES ACTION! They are woven together.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 29, 2002.

If we cannot be saved by faith alone we are condemmed. Not one single person will be able to face God on judgement day and be allowed to enter into heaven. All are with sin from the time we are concieved. We are only made holy through justification by Christ before God. We cannot through our own means gain salvation. What you are saying is that all people regardless of faith, cannot have salvation without good works. We are truly sinful and this is impossible.

-- (ssalzwede@nelhs.org), October 29, 2002.

We are saved by GRACE ALONE through an active, living, obedient FAITH! That's what scripture says, and "not by works lest any man should boast," and not by faith alone, because "faith alone is dead."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 29, 2002.

Mateo

"Technically, we are saved by God's grace." - I agree!

"Christ doesn't "need" our faith or our works." - I agree!

"The Bible is clear that "accepting Jesus" is a lot more work than just a verbal acknowledgement that Jesus is Lord."

It is a heart matter:

Ro 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

"I've asked in the past, and I'll ask now: why are Jesus' own words always absent from the "faith-alone" argument?"

What did Jesus say about salvation in John 3?

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

What works?

"Whoever says, "I know him," but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

So everyone that goes to confession is a liar. Sin is the act of disobeying the commandments of God. I believe this includes every man.

Are we as holy here on earth as God is, or as Christ was here?

1pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

We are saved by God, then perform good works.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We have faith unto salvation because it is the gift of God. We have good works because of salvation.

Works only play a role in rewards in Heaven, not in salvation.

----------

Gail

"You are saved by God's GRACE ONLY, through faith that is obedience, "working" through charity."

You say it is GRACE ONLY - then add through faith and "working" through charity.

Is it still salvation without faith and "working" through charity?

What about the thief of the cross? What did he have? Works? Baptism?

"COMMAND us to do good works!"

He also COMMANDS us to BE HOLY, as in the above scripture. Are you as holy as he is?

"FAITH REQUIRES ACTION!" - I agree!

But godly works, does not mean that we have the faith in Jesus Christ to salvation.

Mt 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

--------- ssalzwede@nelhs.org

Amen!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 29, 2002.

Bold...no bold

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 29, 2002.

SS writes:

"If we cannot be saved by faith alone we are condemmed."

God's grace saves us. Neither our faith nor our works can bring us to Heaven without God's grace. Our faith pleases God. Our good works please God. God judges us based on our living faith.

SS writes: "Not one single person will be able to face God on judgement day and be allowed to enter into heaven."

God's grace gives us the possibility of Heaven.

SS writes: "All are with sin from the time we are concieved."

The sacrament of Baptism is a grace-giving sacrament. From the Catechism, Paragraph 1987:

"The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism."

SS writes: "We are only made holy through justification by Christ before God. We cannot through our own means gain salvation."

Hence, our action of truly saying yes to God is nothing more than a trigger that allows God's grace to save us. The trigger alone doesn't save us.

SS writes: "What you are saying is that all people regardless of faith, cannot have salvation without good works. We are truly sinful and this is impossible."

I'm just quoting the Bible. Saint John's first letter (1 John 2:4-6) and James 2:17 are pretty explicit. The Bible just beats this concept into our heads over and over again: we can think we have faith, but if it isn't accompanied by action, we don't have that faith. We Catholics have 7 sacraments that confer God's grace. Baptism and Confession come to mind especially when we are talking about how to deal with the stain of sin.

Tim asks:

"What did Jesus say about salvation in John 3?"

Here's a longer quote:

"John 3:15-18 - "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

You ask "What works?". The answer to your question is found throughout the Bible. The Cliff-notes: if you "think" you believe in Jesus, but you don't act by conforming your life to His Will, you really don't believe in Jesus.

Here's what follows your quote:

John 3:19-21 - "And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God."

Judgment based on deeds. Just like the end of Matthew 25.

The faith-alone argument is explicitly denounced in James. Maybe this is why Luther didn't like James' letter. If you would like to discuss this more, I suggest that you read the Catechism's section on Grace and Justification. This will help you see how the Catholic Church teaches, as opposed to just hearing my points.

Tim, the faithful Catholic acts on his/her faith. The faithful Catholic is not told to merely say, "Jesus is Lord," to get his/her ticket to Heaven. The Catholic Church communicates the true teaching of the Bible: if you love Jesus, act on that love. Imitate Jesus. The faith-alone argument might be fun for Protestant scholars, but it just doesn't make any sense in reality. It is especially difficult because the faith-alone advocates believe that they are arguing against works-alone. I have yet to meet a "works-alone" Catholic. I don't think that such a person exists. :-)

Jesus repeatedly lays out parables in which people are judged based on their actions. Look at the parable in Matthew 25:14-30. The third servant who buried the money in the ground can be compared to a person who has faith, but doesn't act on it. In the end, the servant still had the money (he was faithful to his master), but the master called him "wicked and slothful."

Tim writes:

"So everyone that goes to confession is a liar. Sin is the act of disobeying the commandments of God. I believe this includes every man."

Whoever knowingly commits a mortal sin without confessing that sin has severed his tie with God, and is at risk of losing eternal salvation. When we reject God through our actions, I don't think any amount of lip service will save us. Tim, just an aside: have you ever gone to confession? I don't know whether you were a Catholic at one time. Nothing important: I'm just curious.

Tim writes:

"Are we as holy here on earth as God is, or as Christ was here?

1 Peter 1:16 'Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.'"

It's also written:

John 14:15 - "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

A rephrasing: "If you don't keep my commandments, you don't love me."

{if A then B} changes to {if (not B) then (not A)} That works, right? It's been a while since I took logic. :-)

Tim writes:

"Works only play a role in rewards in Heaven, not in salvation."

Works determines whether faith exists. According to the Bible, works help separate true faith from lip service. Works play an important role in the plan of salvation. No works? Faith is dead and no salvation. "No soup for you!" :-) (Just for Seinfeld fans!)

Tim writes to Gail (sorry Gail, I hope you don't mind):

"But godly works, does not mean that we have the faith in Jesus Christ to salvation."

Tim, maybe this is a misconception for Protestants. Catholics don't believe that our "Godly works" are worth anything without faith. This is why it is important to remain in a state of grace--because mortal sins (offenses against God's will which can result in damnation) cut our relationship with God. When we sin, we say to God, "I reject You." It doesn't matter how much faith we think we have. It doesn't matter how many good works we have done. When we break one commandment, we break them all. Back to James:

James 2:10-11 "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.

When we are in a state of grace, we can allow God's grace to work in us.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 29, 2002.

Mateo

"Neither our faith nor our works can bring us to Heaven without God's grace." - God's grace through the blood of Jesus Christ!

Ro 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

"The sacrament of Baptism is a grace-giving sacrament."

If we have to be Baptised to enter Heaven, all the old testament saints missed it, and so did the theif on the cross. Yes, I believe we should be Baptised, but it is an act of obedience, not an act of salvation. It is an act, because of salvation.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

James is basically calling them liars if they say they have faith, but do not do the works of God.

If you say you have faith and do not the things of God, you really do not have faith. For if we have faith, then we will do the things of God. It is not that we must do works, but that with faith, we want to do works for God.

"Judgment based on deeds."

For rewards, yes. For salvation, no.

Why do men go to Heaven? They accept Jesus Christ.

Why do men go to Hell? They reject Jesus Christ.

It's that simple. All the "good" works come after salvation and Jesus Christ working in us.

"Whoever knowingly commits a mortal sin without confessing that sin has severed his tie with God, and is at risk of losing eternal salvation."

Should we confess sin, yes - Can we lose salvation, no.

One question: How many sins does it take to send us to Hell? 1

So, how many sins would we have to commit after receiving salvation to lose it, if we could? 1

Pay close attention here:

Ro 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Ro 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Ro 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Ro 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

"Tim, just an aside: have you ever gone to confession?"

Yes, I confess to the High Priest [Jesus Christ] everyday, and ask for forgiveness. {Of course, I have never confess to an earthly priest}

1jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

And if we lose salvation {if it were possible}, guess what? You can't get it again?

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 29, 2002.

Hello Tim,

You write:

"If we have to be Baptised to enter Heaven, all the old testament saints missed it, and so did the theif on the cross. Yes, I believe we should be Baptised, but it is an act of obedience, not an act of salvation. It is an act, because of salvation."

Baptism is a topic that Protestants hold a wide range of views on. I don't know your view, but it sounds almost like Baptism is a mere symbol to you. Instead of me responding with my own words, check out this page that discusses the Necessity of Baptism. You will find all of your points addressed in the link.

You write:

"If you say you have faith and do not the things of God, you really do not have faith. For if we have faith, then we will do the things of God. It is not that we must do works, but that with faith, we want to do works for God."

You're writing like you're quoting from the Bible. Do you talk like this in real life? :-) Anyway, I don't think your statement changes my point that works separates true believers from those who pay with lip service. That's what Jesus says (along with James, John, and others). Faith without works is dead...

You write:

(Quoting me) "Judgment based on deeds."

For rewards, yes. For salvation, no.

Why do men go to Heaven? They accept Jesus Christ.

Why do men go to Hell? They reject Jesus Christ.

It's that simple. All the "good" works come after salvation and Jesus Christ working in us."

Tim, both faith and works are signs that God's grace is working within us. I think the problem is that some Protestants believe that once they "accept Jesus," they are guaranteed salvation: well they are...as long as they don't reject it by their actions. To put things into perspective, I suspect that even Judas Iscariot "accepted Jesus." Being a Christian is a commitment for life to conform yourself to the will of God. The Bible repeatedly qualifies how to determine true believers--it's not just by what they say:

Matthew 25:44-46 - "Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

You should read Matthew 25. They go to eternal punishment because they do not love Jesus through those in need. These are sins of omission, meaning their inaction is sinful. They don't get "less reward" in Heaven--they get eternal punishment. I'll bet they would love to get eternal salvation with "less reward." But this isn't Biblical.

Your question: why do men go to Hell? Because, through their actions, they reject Jesus Christ. That's the answer that Matthew 25 gives.

We must have faith in Jesus. We must love Jesus. We must believe in Jesus. All of this we agree on. What I am saying is that the Bible itself is clear that the faith, love, and belief we have in Jesus can be determined based on our actions. If we don't live (act) as Jesus wants, we don't love him (1 John 2:6). If we love him, we must keep his commandments. (John 14:15). Jesus doesn't say, "If you love me, you possibly will keep my commandments." :-)

You write:

"Should we confess sin, yes - Can we lose salvation, no."

This is an area that Protestants are deeply divided on. I know when I am in friendship with God. But, I don't know whether future temptation will cause me to walk away from that friendship. I know that being in God's friendship, God will give me the gift of salvation. I also know that my own sins can cause me to reject that gift. I suppose that those who abandon their faith in Jesus haven't "lost salvation," because they never really had salvation.

Here are some relevant words from the Catechism:

The necessity of faith (161) "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since ?without faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ?but he who endures to the end.'"

Perseverance in faith (162) "Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: (1 Tim 1:18-19) "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith." To live, grow, and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be "working through charity," abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church."

You write:

"One question: How many sins does it take to send us to Hell? 1

So, how many sins would we have to commit after receiving salvation to lose it, if we could? 1"

That's two questions, and you already answered them. :-)

You quote Romans 8:38-39. Did you notice that St. Paul lists a bunch of external powers? Paul is persuaded that these external forces cannot separate us from Jesus. Unfortunately, he doesn't include us and our actions in the list. He doesn't say, "...nor choosing sin over God shall be able to separate us from the love of God..." This is because Paul's point isn't that we can't be separated from God at all. He's just saying that no external power (no matter how great) can separate us from God if we freely choose to love God. Unfortunately, we can freely choose to reject God's love by sinning, and lose Heaven:

Matthew 5:30 - "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."

Matthew 18:8 - "And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire."

I think it's safe to say that Jesus is speaking to believers here. If He is, then Jesus is saying that those believers can lose eternal salvation if they keep their hand/foot. Once again, they don't just get "less reward," they get eternal damnation. If he were speaking to non-believers, that would suggest that non-believers can avoid hell by rejecting sin (works-alone?). I think he is warning believers that their sin can result in eternal damnation.

You write:

"Yes, I confess to the High Priest [Jesus Christ] everyday, and ask for forgiveness. {Of course, I have never confess to an earthly priest}"

OK, I just wanted to know if you were a former Catholic and if you had experienced the sacrament.

You write:

"And if we lose salvation {if it were possible}, guess what? You can't get it again?"

Now, Tim. Your statement introduces two problems:

1) Those "believers" who embrace sin (acts offensive to God) without repenting will still be saved.

2) Those who believe, then don't believe, will never be taken back as a child of God, no matter how repentant.

As a Christian, I don't think your interpretation fits well with the Christian message: God doesn't put limits on forgiveness. He doesn't have a "one strike and you're out rule." He Himself told Peter to forgive 70 times 7 (490 times?):

Matthew 18:21-22 - "Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven."

I don't think that we should (as you have) put limits on God's mercy and say, "If you 'fall away,' there's no hope of salvation. In Christ, all things are possible. The footnote in the Douay-Rheims Bible for Hebrews 6:4 is:

"It is impossible, etc. . .The meaning is, that it is impossible for such as have fallen after baptism, to be again baptized; and very hard for such as have apostatized from the faith, after having received many graces, to return again to the happy state from which they fell."

I think that this makes more sense, especially in light of Christ's parables of the prodigal son and the lost lamb:

Luke 15:4-7 - "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.' Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

Jesus is the Good Shepherd.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 30, 2002.

Hey Mateo, Tim:

With regard to the Matthew 25 parable -- How chilling it is to think that a person, thinking himself to be a Christian, doing miracles, casting out demons, in His name, can be utterly self-deceived, and have our precious Lord condemn him, "Depart from me, I never KNEW you!" I tell you, it should give us all reason to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."

The Hebrews passage you mentioned is a very difficult passage. It does help to know that the book of Hebrews was written particularly to the "Hebrews" and that Christians were warned NOT to fall back into Judaism. It could be that the "falling away, or back" could be referring to falling back into Judaism after knowing the precious savior. Remember, I think it is Galations where Paul warns the Christians not be circumcized, because if they do, "Christ will be of no value to you."

Anyway, with regards to Baptism, the Church teaches, Tim, that while it is best for a person to receive the grace of Baptism (after all it is a command in scripture), if a person should die with "only a desire" and not sincerely able to receive baptism, that that would suffice. Also, you should know that in cases of emergency, lay persons CAN perform baptisms.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 30, 2002.

Gail

I believe that we agree that works alone do not save us, but that they prove our faith in God.

But, do we differ in salvation?

I believe once saved, always saved. Do you?

If not, how do you lose it? Exactly how?

Thanks

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 30, 2002.

Hi Tim,

There is ample scripture on both sides of the issue to make it a gray area. We have scriptures where Jesus says, "A vine that doesn't produce fruit will be cast into the fire." We have scripture where Jesus says to the church, "If you are lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth." Over and over again Paul admonishes believers to "persevere to the end" and "finishing the race so as to attain salvation," -- I won't site these, I'm sure you know the quotes.

I think there is a balance there. We shouldn't live in fear, and we shouldn't live in casual presumption. I think the Church takes a cautious stand. You can "fall from grace," by willful, UNREPENTANT sin. Of course, our heavenly Father, won't let us have peace in that state. He will pursue us even as we run from him! He is so good!!

Gotta run!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 31, 2002.

Gail

I have 2 questions for you:

1. Do you believe that a saved person is born again of God [a son of God, like the bible teaches]?

2. What does this verse mean?

1jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 31, 2002.

Tim,

As to your first question, I'm not sure what you're asking. We are part of the family of God, His son's and daughter, with Jesus being our eldest brother.

As to the second question, someone who is in constant sin is a child of the devil. Conversely, a child of God, who by definition is in fellowship with God, cannot (or will not) remain in sin. He will repent because he has God's seed (the Spirit) living in him, convicting him and bringing him back to fellowship.

But, if he refuses the conviction and/or disclipine of the Lord, he, in essence, "excommunicates" himself from the family. God does not "kick him out," he leaves on his own volition! God will not drag him back into the family kicking and screaming and wailing insults at his father.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 31, 2002.

I just thought of something, and I really don't know the answer, but, Tim, can you think of one place in the Bible where God forgives unrepentant sin?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 31, 2002.

Talk about futile arguments.....anyway, how about we read the Bible, study it, and determine the answers for ourselves. Then, once we determine these answers go out and earnestly try and get other people to see our point of view (Note: try not to insult the other persons point of view. It doesn't go over to well when trying to convert.) Finally, let God do the rest and stop these horrible threads that only breed anger and animosity. Love, Peace, Joy, Happiness....and any other fruit you want Billy

-- Billy Mr. Man (religionorrelationship@hotmail.com), October 31, 2002.

Billy, with charity, do you have any idea what the Protestants are doing? That’s what they’re doing! Reading the bible and determining the answers for themselves! But none of their answers are the same. Every one of them has a different answer. Now, logically, this cannot be true, because there is ONE Truth! Would God leave us to ourselves to determine what Scripture means? Would he have us come up with our own meaning of it and spread errors? Read the Acts! The Eunec couldn’t read without someone there to teach him. Why can you read without someone to teach you? Why should I read and make up my own interpretation (errors and all) and spread it to others when it could lead to their damnation. Paul wrote all his letters to snuff out this kind of stuff before it spread to far, and you’re trying to tell us we SHOULD spread it? There is only One True Interpretation of Scripture and it is held within the Catholic Church.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 01, 2002.

Jake

"do you have any idea what the Protestants are doing? That’s what they’re doing! Reading the bible and determining the answers for themselves!" - this is incorrect, it is the Holy Spirit that leads a man to the Truth, without the Holy Spirit men corrupt the Word of God, and that is why there are so many religious lies being spread. If man tries to read the scriptures without the Holy Spirit leading him, he will come short of the truth.

"Would God leave us to ourselves to determine what Scripture means?" - No, that is why he has given us the Spirit of Truth.

When we get saved, Christ lives in us...That is why - "The Eunec couldn’t read without someone there to teach him" - couldn't understand the Word of God. It is a spiritual book, and non- spiritual people, lost people, can't understand it.

"There is only One True Interpretation of Scripture and it is held within the Catholic Church." - So, God will show the truth to men that sin, for all have sinned, the truth, but not the Child of God that He has saved from Hell?

Does your dad keep hidden the truth from you, his child, but tell your teacher, so they can tell you???

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 03, 2002.

At the sake and fear of pouring fuel on a pretty toasty fire, Tim could you please tell me where the bible actually comes from? Yes, it was a result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but where did the bible ultimately come from? Also, as I just mentioned, if the bible indeed is inspired, what exactly does that mean?

Tim, it becomes quite difficult in discussing certain issues with you because your only precedence relies solely on the bible (at least your consistent) :) However, if you are going to solely use the bible as sole justification for your beliefs, then you might want to explore the origins of the bible, and how it came into being in the first place. Also, if all we have is the Word, and the Word is our only justification for belief, then when your preacher preaches whose word is he preaching, his own or God's?

Finally, if we are all saved by Jesus Christ and have accepted Him as our personal Lord and Savior and strictly adhere to this one belief, then what about all the other things Jesus commanded us to do, how do they fit into the major scheme? For example, what about his command to Peter, what about loosing and binding, what about all the many parables, how do they too fit into the major scheme? I am just curious, because everywhere I go lately it is just you and the bible, nothing more nothing less, a fundamentalist to the core, no room for anything else.

BTW, I would just like it if Tim responded to these questions.

Thanks

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 03, 2002.

seminarian@ziplip.com

Just a note to let you know I will respond. It is late and I must get some sleep, I will be out tomorrow and Tuesday. I should be able to respond by Wednesday or Thursday.

God Bless!

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Ro 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Ro 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Ro 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Ro 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 03, 2002.

Hey Tim and Everyone:

Tim, the scriptures you posted are excellent, but they really don't answer the questions posed to you. Yes, the Spirit is real and personal. He helps us, guides us, comforts us. YES, to be SURE! None of us here on this forum dispute that.

The issue really is the manifold divisions in Christendom! Manmade divisions! We have the Catholic Church whose origen can be traced back to Jesus and apostles WITHOUT A DOUBT, and then we have all of these manmade Protestant denominations. Why, we even have Wesleyans who call themselves that because they follow John Wesley (a great man by the way), the Lutherans, Calvinists, etc., which is in clear opposition to St. Paul's admonitiion to the Corinthians, "I follow Apollos, . . . etc." and Paul says, "What, has Christ been divided?"

If the Holy Spirit has been the leader of the denominational splits, wouldn't you think He would have guided them to the same "TRUTHS"? Apparently, He has told one group one thing, and another something else. Does that make sense to you? Something is wrong with that picture!

The question is, "Who can claim absolute authenticity?"

Lots of love, Gots to go to work,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 04, 2002.

Jake and Tim: "Do you have any idea what the Protestants are doing? That’s what they’re doing! Reading the bible and determining the answers for themselves!" (Jake) ==>

''. . . this is incorrect, it is the Holy Spirit that leads a man to the truth, without the Holy Spirit men corrupt the Word of God, and that is why there are so many religious lies being spread. If man tries to read the scriptures without the Holy Spirit leading him, he will come short of the truth.''

Jake told us the facts. Tim wants it both ways; but who are the Bible-readers who can't come together, in ONE truth from the Holy Spirit?

NON-Catholics! Tim is one. He feels he has the Spirit to guard him from failing in the knowledge of scripture. Why only him? He's his own pope; and every other ''born again Christian'' is just as sure of his own interpretation. A new tower of Babel; not any single entity, a Church! If they had communion one with the other, we could say the Spirit has preserved the truth in their midst. But there is no agreement, each sect makes what it wants of the scriptures. Tim is only one of the multitude who think they have the Spirit. In fact, the only thing their ''faiths'' have in common, is they reject the Catholic faith.

I find Tim's evasive response to Jake's clear facts amusing. Amusing in it's dishonest undertones:

''. . . men corrupt the Word of God, and that is why there are so many religious lies being spread.''

Oh? I guess lies are what result when the Holy Spirit isn't present in your church? Some rationale! Jake was referring to the proof; real proof of the Spirit's absence: discord, disunion, lack of unity! Tim has to set up a straw dog, ''religious lies.'' How convenient! You can have 28,000 varying versions of Christian truth, and they won't matter for true Christians. But the unified, complete and universal Church is leading us without the Holy Spirit? We believe ''religious lies''. Tim, your dishonesty is this great LUST, as you like to say. You mean to tell the truth, you wish you could. But you're dishonest about every aspect of faith. You are simply partial to a losing church.

The Catholic Church wants to welcome you back. You won't have it, because your pride insists you have the Spirit, despite all this dishonesty and error.

. . . . . .

Thanks, Jake. All you said to this man is true and on the mark. Don't be discouraged, Our Lord loves your faith and your charity; your counselling to Tim. I'm proud of you myself. You really show him the light of the Holy Spirit, young man.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 04, 2002.

""do you have any idea what the Protestants are doing? That?s what they?re doing! Reading the bible and determining the answers for themselves!" - this is incorrect, it is the Holy Spirit that leads a man to the Truth, without the Holy Spirit men corrupt the Word of God, and that is why there are so many religious lies being spread. If man tries to read the scriptures without the Holy Spirit leading him, he will come short of the truth."

That's my point though, Tim. Ask any one of those pastors and they will say, "it was the Spirit that led me." You just don't get it, Tim! Every one of those pastors has the same convictions you have, which are telling them that they have the correct interpritation! Would the Spirit of Truth be so naive as to leave it to our own discretion when we are "led by the Spirit". It is obviously NOT right, because the Spirit of Truth would have brought all those pastors to the same interpritation! Ask youslef what proof your pastor has against all the others that his ideas are Spirit Filled!

"Would God leave us to ourselves to determine what Scripture means?" - No, that is why he has given us the Spirit of Truth."

But if ALL the 30,000 protestant groups claim to have the Spirit of Truth. Don't you think that the Spirit (God) would have known this? Would He who is all knowing, leave us to decide between 30,000 "faiths"? NO! The Spirit was promised to be with the Church! Not with each individual's own ideas!

When we get saved, Christ lives in us...That is why - "The Eunec couldn?t read without someone there to teach him" - couldn't understand the Word of God. It is a spiritual book, and non- spiritual people, lost people, can't understand it."

I answered this on the other thread, but... If this is true what you are saying, I will bring you once more to the simple fact that every one of the thousands of protestant pastors claims to be filled with the spirit. In fact, if this were true, then all the christians in the entire world can read the Bible and preach the "Truth" because all are saved, right? You're going to say, "but all aren't saved". But then, why do you believe you are saved, and yet you don't believe someone else who says they are saved. If you both are saved, but you both interpret the Bible differently, then you cannot say that Jesus is living in one or the other, because Jesus knows his word and would interpret it the same for both parties. The fact is Jesus IS in both, but both are reading the Bible with their individual mindsets. They aren't reading the Scripture as it should have been taught to them by the Apostles, who are found in Christ's Church and have proof of their authority in the Catholic Church.

"There is only One True Interpretation of Scripture and it is held within the Catholic Church." - So, God will show the truth to men that sin, for all have sinned, the truth, but not the Child of God that He has saved from Hell?

Honestly, I had a hard time following what you were trying to convey with this response. But, in a guess to what you intended... God did show the Truth to men who sin (the Apostles). And he commissioned them not to write the Gospel, but the PREACH the Gospel. This Apostolic Gospel which was preached remains only in the Catholic Church, because we hold what is written AND what was spoken.

"Does your dad keep hidden the truth from you, his child, but tell your teacher, so they can tell you???"

This makes very little sense, and I'll show you why: 1) God rarly ever shows himself to others like he did to Paul. Yet even Paul had to confirm his beliefs with Peter. So if you say, I believe God talked to me last night, while I was reading the Scripture, but Susie down the street read the same passage and felt God talked to her, but her understanding was diffent then yours - who was really talked to? There needs to be an authority!

2)God knows all and sees all, agreed? God then would know that if he gave the Spirit of Truth to all of us, without an authority to confirm the Truth, we would divide and spread like wildfire with our own false belief that we all know what the Scripture means! God did indeed give the Spirit to ALL of us, but he left us with the Catholic Church to confirm and direct us in the Truth! For instance: My father knows that 2+2 is four, and so he teaches me this, right? But, Andy's dad down the street (who didn't make it past 'K') trys to tell me that 2+2 is really 5. Now, I believe my dad, but on what authority is he giving me his info. So, I need to go to the authority, who would be a math teacher! This is a very simple example, but it should make the point. Really, Tim, it is your pastors word against a thousand others. But the Catholic Church has the Apostolic Succession to prove that her teachings came from Christ Himslef. We are the Authority. The same Authority that had the authority to decide which books belonged in the canon!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 04, 2002.

I am a Lutheran (ELCA, since it matters a great deal which Synod to some) and my thoughts on Luther are this: He was a man. Perhaps he was a flawed man. But, in much the way as Catholics view popes, he was right in most of his teachings. Not infallible but nevertheless he writes on many matters of faith as one whom god has inspired (not in a word for word sense as some would say the Bible is) to teach and to preach and to write as he did. His writings stand as wise and sound and rational. Surely God guided him in this even as he may or may not have strayed in his personal life. We should not dwell so much on trying to figure out what Luther's personal failings may or may not have been. Rather, we should look at the sort of fruits born by his teachings and the impacts his teachings might have on our lives. Luther taught about forgiveness, can no one forgive Luther?

-- Karin Frank (scoobideux@msn.com), April 14, 2003.

All men are flawed men. Luther, Popes, you, me. That is a given. However, the reason Luther was "right in most of his teachings" is that he initially retained the truth of his Catholic faith in most aspects of his personal beliefs. However, as time went on, his teaching included increasing numbers of heretical ideas - the inevitable result of separation from the pillar and foundation of truth. He was not right in his teachings where they deviated from those of Christ's own Church. He was not right in removing sections of the Holy Bible that conflicted with his new doctrines or his rejection of 1,500 year old Christian truths. The fruits born of his teachings have been dissention, division, denominationalism, and doctrinal chaos in Christianity - virtual destruction of Christ's plan for His Church - "that they all may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE". Luther himself, on his deathbed, expressed his dismay and regret over the damage his new traditions had already wrought. Several conflicting denominations already existed - the direct result of his novel ideas of sola scriptura and personal interpretation, a dynamic which continues to disrupt and divide Christianity to this very day.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 14, 2003.

I am discouraged and saddened to read comments that have the spirit of "Let's fight." It is wrong headed and hard hearted.

Theology is not a competitive game within which we hurl beliefs at one another.

I have never understood how easily some give themselves license to build walls, tear down bridges, and harshly judge other believers. Such is not the spirit of Christ.

We can do better than this. We don't have the luxury to battle our personal little wars while the whole witness of the Christian get's shoved into the background. The world out there sees. How many do we drive away from the faith by our lack of common kindness and even basic manners?

I KNOW we can do much better.

Ray

-- Ray Johnson (rayjarts@aol.com), April 28, 2003.

Paul,

As always, your post is accurate, concise, loving, and truthful.

May God bless you and your ministry in the Church.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), April 28, 2003.

Well, from reading all of this, it looks that at least no matter what christian church you belong to, you all have the same BASIC, beliefs. That's a good thing!! Sometimes, things can be worded differently an example: Baptist dedicate babies and Catholic and Lutherns have Baptism. But one thing is for sure, everyone believe's in the bible, god, jesus, holly spirit and etc, they are pretty good BASIC beliefs for salvation.

-- (jacobs@blackhills.com), May 03, 2003.

Well, there has to be something in common, or churches which have split off from the Catholic Church would have no claim whatsoever to the name "Christian". What makes a church Christian is the extent to which they retain the teachings of the original Christian Church, the Catholic Church. Simply keeping Jesus as a central figure is not sufficient to qualify a church as Christian. For example, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, even though Jesus plays a prominent role in their theology because What they believe about Him is totally incompatible with the teachings of Catholicism.

Yes, all who claim to be Christian "believe in God"; but so do a great many non-Christians. Christians all "believe in Jesus", though some on the outer fringes do not consider him divine. Christians all "believe in the Holy Spirit", though some sects don't accept Him as an actual person, but only as an inanimate force. The one thing that ALL Christian Churches do claim to believe in is the Bible, yet that is the one thing on which there is the least amount of agreement on beliefs. Each denomination actually believes in its own interpretations of the Bible, which are often miles away from the actual meaning of the Bible. The difference between "dedication of a baby" and the Sacrament of Baptism is as great as the difference between a first date and Marriage. It is not merely a difference in terminology. So, in fact, all Christians do not share the same basic beliefs. In fact, there is hardly a single doctrinal belief that all Protestants accept and understand in the same way. How disheartening this must be to Our Blessed Lord, Who prayed "Father, that they all may be ONE, even as You Father and I are ONE".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 04, 2003.

No, Martin Luther wasn't a heretic at all. even though some of his teachings might have gone a little far, I'm sure in the eyes of God, he was nice guy. I mean come on, just imagine the condition of the world today, had he not stood against the medieval church. Its obvious that the Catholic church of those days were corrupt, carrying evil practices like the sale of indulgences. How many innocent people had to suffer at the mercy of the pope. i know that it is hard for some Catholic guys to accept the fact that it was their faith which had been stood against. But the whole thing is not about Catholics fighting against the Protestants or the Orthodox. What Christians need are the proper teachings of Christ which he has taught and nothing more than that. In that case what Martin Luther said was right. Purchasing indulgences is not gonna help. Faith, Faith, Faith, and Faith is going to help you. The word Faith has come out of Jesus's mouth atleast a million times. Guys let me tell you something, no one is worthy enough to buy God's power to got to heaven.

-- Prashanth Mathew Joseph (math_jose@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.

"Nice guy" is not the opposite of "heretic". Actually Luther is said to have been a pompous, abrasive individual, but that has nothing to do with the question of heresy. The Church of God in Medieval times did indeed have certain administrative practices which were in serious need of reform, and those who protested against such abuses of existing policies, including Luther, were on solid ground. However, most of those who were concerned about such abuses stayed in God's Church and worked for needed reform, which they eventually accomplished. Luther however is not known for his role in reforming the Holy Catholic Church's administrative practices, for he played no role in such reforms. Instead he separated himself from the God-given authority of the Vicar of Christ. Shortly thereafter he began publicly proclaiming doctrines - not just protests against administrative abuse - which were clearly contrary to Christian teaching. At that point he was indeed a heretic, and was justly disciplined as such. The tradition of doctrinal untruth which Luther unleashed is now a worldwide epidemic, and a scandal in Christianity, causing many to shun Christ simply because of the obvious state of contradiction and fragmentation among those who claim to be His followers.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 11, 2003.

i do not mean to offend any one with my reasoning behind why i think martin luther is not a heretic. Many claim that luther is a heretic i disagree with this viewpoint because i believe like many others that what martin luther was trying to do was highlight the churches drift to the wrong path. No one knows if martin luther was a bad or good guy what we do know is that he highlighted reasons where he thought the church was wrong an in these aspects i believe the church was wrong. The real heretic is (not sure of name)father tetzel. I believe that martin luther was a visionary a man who can see faults not a schismatic who wants to break the church up unlike the highly intelligent ulrich zwingli. Martin luther condemened the church but instead of showing humbleness the church excommunicated him and tried to embarass him with eck and his speech but martin luther was a determined soul who fought for what he rightly believd is right

If my information is wrong or others have a different view point i am ok for a reply here as i am only 16 please forgive me if i have some how been rude to any here

-- k uppal (jittyMAN64@hotmail.com), September 25, 2003.

i do not mean to offend any one with my reasoning behind why i think martin luther is not a heretic. Many claim that luther is a heretic i disagree with this viewpoint because i believe like many others that what martin luther was trying to do was highlight the churches drift to the wrong path. No one knows if martin luther was a bad or good guy what we do know is that he highlighted reasons where he thought the church was wrong an in these aspects i believe the church was wrong. The real heretic is (not sure of name)father tetzel. I believeg that martin luther was a visionary a man who can see faults not a schismatic who wants to break the church up unlike the highly intelligent ulrich zwingli. Martin luther condemened the church but instead of showing humbleness the church excommunicated him and tried to embarass him with eck and his speech but martin luther was a determined soul who fought for what he rightly believd is right

If my information is wrong or others have a different view point i am ok for a reply here as i am only 16 please forgive me if i have some how been rude to any here

-- k uppal (jittyMAN64@hotmail.com), September 25, 2003.

Luther was definately a schismatic, and definately a sinner who wrote and taught many simply wrong and bad things. But as it is a philosophical principal that no one can be entirely wrong in everything and still make any sense... sure, in the whole corpus of his works and writings you'll find some paragraphs or phrases that are true and good and "catholic".

He made some marginally valid critiques of real sins and problems in the Catholic Church...but by and large his response was not their reform but their increase!

Maybe we can say that his intentions may have been noble...,but his actions and teaching weren't.

The proof of this is that virtually no Protestant quotes Luther with as much reverance as they do St Paul (he's not even considered a saint by them!). Yet if he were the "great reformer" you'd think at the very least most Protestants would reverently read all this major works and homilies...which they don't.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 25, 2003.

Joe, The reason we protestants do not enshrine Luther's writings (many of which blaze with truth, such as his preface to Romans) is because Luther points us to the scriptures. Luther himself told some men who wished to publish his writings to burn them and read the scriptures. Scott Lownsdale

-- Scott lownsdale (wscottlo@aol.com), November 03, 2003.

Scott

Whose Scriptures? Luther dropped several books of the bible. So in his attempt, that you mention, to look like he was not changing anything he in fact did by dropping books of the bible. Not to mention he dropped the authority of the pope and Church which is explicitly mentioned in the bible. Luther made religion, that is our relationship with God, a free-for-all, and it is still in that chaos today in all the Protestant denominations. For there are as many interpretations of scripture as there are heads in those churches.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), November 03, 2003.

Whose Scriptures? Luther dropped several books of the bible

no he didnt, subsequent protestant sects did. what luther did was innappropriate and should have been handled privately, but he was not guilty of destroying the protestant bible to the incompleteness in which it resides now.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 03, 2003.

OK thanks paul h, I suppose that was a natural result of the chaos he sparked. Luther was smart to tell people to burn his own writings, he had a potty mouth.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), November 03, 2003.

paul h, you're partly correct and partly not.

It's true that Luther did not physically remove any books from the Bible (i.e., the German translation that he worked on for 12 years), but he took the first evil step that eventually led others to do that physical removal. He relegated seven Old Testament books to a separate section (between the testaments), labeling them as not inspired by God. Here is how the great convert-apologist Dave Armstrong describes this -----

The Old Testament in Catholic Bibles contains seven more books than are found in Protestant Bibles (46 and 39, respectively). Protestants call these seven books the Apocrypha and Catholics know them as the deuterocanonical books. These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch. Also, Catholic Bibles contain an additional six chapters (107 verses) in the book of Esther and another three in the book of Daniel (174 verses). ...

The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii). ... Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

... Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river. ... The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.

... Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read."

-- (TobitOr@Not.Tobit (That is the Question)), November 03, 2003.

Tobit or not Tobit,

Great screen name, and great post.

Thank you for the very useful quotes from David Armstrong, and I'll be looking for his name in the future!

Gee, Jeanie,

Why doncha tell us what you really think? :)

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow,.com), November 24, 2003.

Merci for the compliment, Anna.

No need for you to be looking out for Dave Armstrong's name in the future. Just start at the home page of his huge site, and then burrow into it! He'll blow your mind, Madame Flower.

-- (TobitOr@Not.Tobit (That is the Question)), November 24, 2003.

I tried to read five years worth of responses in a short time. To the original question, I would have to say, yes, Luther was a heretic unless he did not deny Catholic dogma and doctrine such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the true authority of the Papacy, etc. I believe he did. There was a reason he was excommunicated; the Church did not and does not throw that punitive measure around lightly. Look at what we in America are going through today with Kerry et al. I believe that the Holy Father believes that a movement is underway today toward a real unity, which is why I believe — someone else may know better on this — he lifted the excommunication of Luther (he did for the Orthodox, too). Does that mean that he now accepts what Luther taught in toto? Doubtful, but I believe that he thinks this was his best course of action; to build on what we have in common. True reform happens in the Church, not outside. Perhaps Luther did not mean to sunder the Church but he set the process in motion. Francis — speaking of Assisi — destroyed pagan strongholds by staying within the Church; disobedience and rebellion can never directly bring about reform. It only brings about more disunity and rebellion; that is clear from history and what is happening today. Christ founded a Church in time and history on Peter (Scott Hahn has a good rejoinder to those that try to "distinguish" rock and pebble in Greek; Jesus spoke in Aramaic and there is only one word; Cephas). That Church is the Catholic Church. Has She always been the Bride of Christ or the Body of Christ? No. Has every Pope been a holy man? No. For that matter, Peter denied Him but Jesus never rescinded His call to Peter. Even the regrettable Popes, like Honorius III, never taught as faith or morals what they practiced as matters of belief. It's infallibility, not impeccability. All those who accept the Bible as the infallible word of God and then reject the source from which It came — the Church — are inconsistent. The Bible came out of the Church and Her lived experience. Think about it; the first book was not written until at least 25 years after Christ Ascended. What did they do; stop living? No; they passed it down — which is what Tradition means — through their preaching; the Kerygma. Even the Gospel writers, when quoting passages that don't necessarily have a basis in the Old Testament, acknowledge the reality of Tradition. It is also clear that Christ gave Peter the keys; real authority, so much so that whatever he declared bound on earth was bound in Heaven. This is not some limited or juridical or some other cockamamie authority but the authority of Christ Himself. As far as JP II's attitude toward Moslems et al and the Assisi event, he is solid enough in his role as Vicar of Christ as a shepherd of all — is that not what Christ was? — to call all people together to pray for something that is desperately needed. Does that mean he rubber-stamped their beliefs? No; what he was trying to do is get people together in an atmosphere of love and hopefully nudge them closer to the Truth. After all, even Paul referred to the kernel of truth of the Athenians' altar "to the Unknown God." Did stuff happen that shouldn't have? Likely, but it doesn't necessarily destroy the event, either. It did not touch on doctrine unless he explicitly denied some Catholic doctrine or affirmed as a matter of faith a complete falsehood, which I don't believe he did. He tried to take what was truthful in these religions, what are shadows of Revelation, and bring them to fuller flower. What did you expect him to do: gather them together and tell them they were all going to go to hell? On the third major thread, grace, good works, faith and salvation, I think it is clear that if you look at the whole of Scripture, especially the New Testament — not prooftexting, because you can prove anything by ripping a passage out of context — that all are involved. God has already objectively saved us but he needs our cooperation — like Mary, he needs our yes to act in our lives because He will not force it on us — to make that act subjective and individual. Grace moves us to accept this truth of His love for us and what His Son did for us. We cannot save ourselves, period. However, that same grace — the grace of faith IN Christ, not faith in faith — then should move us to share this Good News and "do unto the least of these My brothers." I think it is clear that we will be judged for the good we do or do not do — in His Name. It is both right belief and right practice. That includes the need for repentance when we fail — when don't we? Christ Himself knows we will fall; why do you think He preached so much on Mercy, not only that which God has for us but that which we have for others and ourselves? OK, everyone can now breathe. Thank you for your time, patience and attitude about this whole thing. In Christ Jim

-- james r. metcalfe (jmetcalfe@delphosherald.com), June 16, 2004.