Sponsor |  Mgbobi | Jan 19, 1:09pm | | Wow! What a list. I already believed these things, but I didn't realize how many scriptures said to reject those who are not of the truth. This actually has application in some issues I am up against right now. Thanks for the research!!! |
|
|
| 
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | Jan 22, 7:58am | firefor..., it is true that the scriptures you quoted say what they do, but it is different from what you say they say.... We must read them in context.
2 John 9-11 does talk about those who are not in Christ, but they are talking about those preachers of the times that taught the wrong Gospel. It is not saying to stay away from any and all people who are not in Christ. If so, then how are we to spread the gospel to the world? Why then would we have missionaries?
Galatians 1: 7-9 is what it says it is. Those who teach the wrong Gospel are dangerous. Why, because they can deceive people into believing was is not true in the teachings of Christ.
2 John again talks about those false teachers who are not following the true teachings of Christ and thus are harmful to the body of Christ by teaching something that is false.
2 Tim and Matt 15:16 does not imply what you says it implies. 2 Tim is talking about scripture that it is inspired by God and is useful to teach. In Matt, Jesus is leading His Apostles away from how the pharisees taught. Now for your point on Saints, you misunderstand the entire concepts of saints. Yes there is one Final mediator between man and God, but there are many who can pray for us to that Final Mediator. If not, why would you or anyone in your church ask their fellow Christians for prayer? Scripture tells us to pray for each other. Why would that be if there is having one mediator means no one else could pray for us... a clear misunderstanding on your part.
1 Cor. 5:9, 11, 13 ... is it obvious? What translation are you reading.
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people,
(10) not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. (11)But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. (12) For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? (13) God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."
Paul is correcting himself when people believed him to say that one should never associate themselves with immoral Christians. He is just expressing that fact the they should maintain "inner purity" in doing so.
2 Corn is also taken out of context. Again, if we are not to be in contact, then we could not live in this world and missionary programs would never exist.
The reason I state that not everything that Good Christians say is true, is because we can misinterpret what we read and give an ugly impression of what Christianity really is all about. Hence the reaction in post 12 |
|
| 
Sponsor | | lesoldham | Jan 22, 4:28pm | | God job Ewtn2000. I agree |
|
|
Sponsor | | Mgbobi | Jan 23, 12:53am | | What you say is correct Ewtn2000. However, the original argument (I hope I have this right) is not about unbelievers, but about the justification for Martin Luther to split from the "false teachers", "leaders" of the Church in his Era. Therefore, as justifications for Martin Luther's actions, FireforChrist has a point. This is not the rejection of sinful unbelievers, but of the separation from false teachers. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | Jan 23, 6:25am | | Well except for the fact that Martin Luther was not as innocent as history wants you to believe. Yes, he wanted reform, yet I don't think that in changing what scripture says is the way to get it. Infact, if you change scripture to match your personal agenda, then you become a false teacher. Reform was needed, yet it was the church that Jesus left us. Jesus taught us that in the body, or the Church, there will always be those who will follow their own will. Hence Judas. That was a basic teaching of Christ. Yet, the Church Jesus left is holy despite the people in it. But back to Martin, what would call someone who changes words or adds words or deletes word from scripture and then teaches that as the original teachings of Christ? |
|
|
Sponsor | | Mgbobi | Jan 23, 8:25am | Can you provide a reference website for Luther's lack of innocence. I would be very interested to see it. What scripture did he change. This is the first I've heard of this.
As for the second part, The church as described by Jesus is not an institution, but all those who believe on him from every tribe, tongue and nation. In Acts, Paul simply made sure to remain in unity with Peter and the church in Jerusalem, but they had no direct leadership over the gentile churches. Jesus threatened to take away one of the lamp stands from the churches in revelations. Just because Jesus blessed Peter, it is too much to assume he meant that all churches had to remain under his and his alleged descendants power. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | Jan 29, 9:53am | | Sorry for the delay, business is calling and it gives me little time for leisure. Scripture first... There is a reason why the Protestant bible and the Catholic bible are different. For the first 1200 after the canonization of scripture, the Christian church had no problem with any and all books. Besides removing some of the OT books Martin also added the word "solam" to Roman 3:28 changing the meaning of the phrase. Now who would dare do that?... I'll continue this later. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Mgbobi | Jan 30, 1:51pm | | Actually what I know is that the Martin Luther went back to earlier copies and only changed things that were falsely added in by the Catholic Church. Even modern translation like the NIV go back to original greek and Hebrew documentation to insure accuracy. Most modern translations completely pass the latin vulgate. It has long been known that there were problems with the latin vulgate. As well as some other documentation relied on by the Catholic church. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | usmjam | Jan 30, 3:04pm | The way Catholics view Martin Luther is of course as a heretic, a divisive, and at the time was sought ought for execution. The particulars of that church split ought be discussed in the thread titled "Martin Luther's legacy -Current day view" which is in the group set up for specific issues between Catholics vs. non-mainline Christians and is called Catholic-EvangelicalTalk.Otherwise this whole thread is basically arguing Catholic doctrine vs. Luther.
The intent of this thread is to compare Luther's legacy in the light of purely biblical standards. As ironic as it may seem, Luther may well have failed in his quest to live according to Sola Scriptura. His intent was well stated, he wanted to reform the church that claims to have apostolic succession and the mandate from Christ to basically replace Him. His call for reform was to have a better well behaved Catholic hierarchy and to introduce a form of salvation by faith that would still depend on the sacraments. That was a contradiction right there. His reputation to the contrary, Luther is not the model for classic bible-based Christianity. Luther still believed in the need for intercessory priests and rejected the words of Jesus which tell us all believers have free access to the Throne of Grace as preists. "Half a millennium later, we live in the shadow of Martin Luther's heresy. Martin's heresy was not the doctrine of salvation by grace; he merely uncovered what Paul had written 1,500 years earlier.
Rather, Luther's heresy was his inability to put the concept of a priesthood of believers into practice. Luther's heresy was the imprimatur for Christianity - Protestant or Catholic - to continue down the same path of intolerance and repression that continue to obscure the diversity and true eclecticism of Jesus' message."
For Evangelical bible-based believers, Martin Luther was a failed reformer by his very attempt to reform a church that bible believers should simply leave and rely instead on the power of Jesus Himself, and Jesus alone. |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion