Luther on the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, & St. John Fisher
Dec 17, 2017 01:45:25 #
10/31/2017 Luther on the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, & St. John Fisher
Dave Armstrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/10/luther-deaths-zwingli-st-thomas-st-john-fisher.html
The heroic, inspiring stories of St. Thomas More (1478-1535) and
Saint, knight, Lord Chancellor of England, author and martyr, born in London, 7 February, 1477-78; executed at Tower Hill, 6 July, 1535.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm
St. John Fisher (1469-1535; Cardinal, Bishop of Rochester, and martyr; born at Beverley, Yorkshire, England, 1459 (?1469); died 22 June, 1535.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08462b.htm
The only bishop in England who resisted Henry VIII’s tyranny and butcheries) are well known, so I won’t recount them here.
Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) was Luther’s fellow Protestant “reformer”, who differed from him especially on the question of the nature of the Eucharist;
Holding to mere symbolism, whereas Luther accepted the Real (Substantial) Presence.
Protestant historian Philip Schaff has written about Luther’s hostility towards Zwingli:
His disgust with the radicalism and fanaticism of Carlstadt and Münzer, his increasing bodily infirmities, and his dissatisfaction with affairs in Wittenberg (which he threatened to leave permanently in 1544), cast a cloud over his declining years.
He had so strongly committed himself, and was so firm in his convictions, that he was averse to all further changes and to all compromises.
He was equally hostile to the Pope, whom he hated as the very antichrist, and to Zwingli, whom he regarded as little better than an infidel.
The deepest ground of Luther’s aversion to Zwingli must be sought in his mysticism and veneration for what he conceived to be the unbroken faith of the Church.
He strikingly expressed this in his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia (which might easily be turned into a powerful argument against the Reformation itself).
He went so far as to call Zwingli a non-Christian (Unchrist), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Confession on the Lords Supper).
His personal interview with him at Marburg (October, 1529) produced no change, but rather intensified his dislike.
He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy.
(Wider etliche Rottengeister, Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in De Wette’s edition of L. Briefe, Vol. IV. pp. 352, 353).
And even shortly before his death, unnecessarily offended by a new publication of Zwingli’s works, he renewed the eucharistic controversy in his Short Confession on the Lord’s Supper (1544, in Walch’s edition, Vol. XX. p. 2195), in which he abused Zwingli and Oecolampadius as heretics, liars, and murderers of souls, and calls the Reformed generally ‘eingeteufelte [ἐνδιαβολισθέντες], durchteufelte, überteufelte lästerliche Herzen und Lügenmäuler.’
No wonder that even the gentle Melanchthon called this a ‘most atrocious book,’ and gave up all hope for union (letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 475: ‘Atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum περὶ δείπνου κυριακοῦ instaurat;’ comp. also his letter to Bucer, Aug. 28, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 474, both quoted also by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 412, note 38, and p. 434, note 37).
But it should in justice be added, first, that Luther’s heart was better than his temper, and, secondly, that he never said a word against Calvin; . . .”
(The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I, 1877, revised by Philip Schaff: 5th edition in 1884; this is the 6th edition from 1931; Chapter Six, section 45; p. 260)
Here are some very telling excerpts from the aforementioned letter of Luther’s:
And recently God has notably punished the poor people of Switzerland, Zwingli and his followers, for they were hardened and perverted, condemned of themselves, as St. Paul says.
They will all experience the same.
Although neither Munzerites nor Zwinglians will admit that they are punished by God, but give out that they are martyrs,
Nevertheless we, who know that they have gravely erred in the sacrament and other articles, recognize God’s punishment and beware of it ourselves.
Not that we rejoice in their misfortune, which is and always has been a sorrow to our hearts, but we cannot let the witness of God pass unnoticed.
We hope from the bottom of our hearts that they are saved, as it is not impossible for God to convert a man in a moment at his death;
But to call them martyrs implies that they died for a certain divine faith, which they did not.
We do not send criminals whom we execute to hell, but we do not for that reason make martyrs of them.
. . . We must believe that this is a chastisement of God, of which they cannot boast . . .
Wherefore I warn your Grace, and beg that you will avoid such people and not suffer them in your land. . . .
For if you allow any to teach against the long and unanimously held doctrine of the Church when you can prevent it, it may well be called an unbearable burden to conscience. . . .
For we must not trifle with the articles of faith so long and unanimously held by Christendom . . .
(Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Luther, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911, 291-292; letter from Wittenberg, “February or beginning of March, 1532)
Luther’s general thought on the question of execution of heretics was expressed in a statement from his Home-Postils in 1533:
The worldly authorities bear the sword with orders to prevent all scandal, so that it may not enter and inflict harm.
But the most dangerous and horrible scandal is where false doctrine and worship penetrates . . .
They (i.e., State officials) must resist it (i.e., such scandal) stoutly, and realize that nothing else will avail save their use of the sword and of the full extent of their power in order to preserve the doctrine pure and the worship clean and undefiled.
(in Erasmus and Luther: Their Attitude to Toleration, Robert H. Murray, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920, p. 274; documentation of German primary sources in the footnotes; parentheses in this work)
Thus, in accordance with this mentality of secular states executing persons because of their religious beliefs (and in light of his thought about Zwinglians and God’s judgment),
We see his chilling reaction to the martyrdoms of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher:
The fierceness of his zeal was blinding him increasingly.
He rejoiced at the death of those rare spirits, Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, in 1535.
His joy arose in part from the circumstance that the latter had just been created a member of the Sacred College.
“Oh, that our Right Reverend Cardinals, Popes and Roman Legates,” he wrote, “had more kings of England to destroy them.” (Ibid., p. 274)
This lovely sentiment was expressed in a letter to Philip Melanchthon in the beginning of December 1535. It is reprinted in Luther’s Works, Vol. 50: Letters III, 113-117. Luther opines (p. 115):
It is quite easy for someone who knows what kind of traitors, thiefs, robbers, and even devils the most reverend lord cardinals, popes, and their ambassadors are, to have second thoughts.
I wish there would be more kings of England who would slay them.
Footnote 9 mentions the editor’s opinion that this statement might relate to St. John Fisher’s execution; cf. similar citation in Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work, Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1950, p. 415; he provides some of the original Latin from primary source Briefwechsel, Vol. X, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliae, qui eos occiderent“. His version (translated from his German to English) is as follows:
One is apt to fly into a passion, when one realizes what traitors, thieves, murderers, yea, veritable devils the cardinals, popes, and their legates are. Would they had several kings of England to execute them.
The Catholic Encyclopedia describes St. John Fisher’s last days:
In June a special commission for Fisher’s trial was issued, and on 17 June he was arraigned in Westminster Hall on a charge of treason, in that he denied the king to be supreme head of the Church.
St. John Fisher
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08462b.htm
Since he had been deprived of his bishopric by the Act of Attainder, he was treated as a commoner, and tried by jury.
He was declared guilty, and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, but the mode of execution was changed, and instead he was beheaded on Tower Hill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered
The martyr’s last moments were thoroughly in keeping with his previous life.
He met death on 22 June 1535, with a calm dignified courage which profoundly impressed all present.
His headless body was stripped and left on the scaffold till evening, when it was thrown naked into a grave in the churchyard of Allhallows, Barking.
Thence it was removed a fortnight later and laid beside that of Sir Thomas More in the church of St. Peter ad Vincula by the Tower.
His head was stuck upon a pole on London Bridge, but its ruddy and lifelike appearance excited so much attention that, after a fortnight, it was thrown into the Thames, its place being taken by that of Sir Thomas More, whose martyrdom occurred on 6 July next following.
Dave Armstrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/10/luther-deaths-zwingli-st-thomas-st-john-fisher.html
The heroic, inspiring stories of St. Thomas More (1478-1535) and
Saint, knight, Lord Chancellor of England, author and martyr, born in London, 7 February, 1477-78; executed at Tower Hill, 6 July, 1535.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm
St. John Fisher (1469-1535; Cardinal, Bishop of Rochester, and martyr; born at Beverley, Yorkshire, England, 1459 (?1469); died 22 June, 1535.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08462b.htm
The only bishop in England who resisted Henry VIII’s tyranny and butcheries) are well known, so I won’t recount them here.
Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531) was Luther’s fellow Protestant “reformer”, who differed from him especially on the question of the nature of the Eucharist;
Holding to mere symbolism, whereas Luther accepted the Real (Substantial) Presence.
Protestant historian Philip Schaff has written about Luther’s hostility towards Zwingli:
His disgust with the radicalism and fanaticism of Carlstadt and Münzer, his increasing bodily infirmities, and his dissatisfaction with affairs in Wittenberg (which he threatened to leave permanently in 1544), cast a cloud over his declining years.
He had so strongly committed himself, and was so firm in his convictions, that he was averse to all further changes and to all compromises.
He was equally hostile to the Pope, whom he hated as the very antichrist, and to Zwingli, whom he regarded as little better than an infidel.
The deepest ground of Luther’s aversion to Zwingli must be sought in his mysticism and veneration for what he conceived to be the unbroken faith of the Church.
He strikingly expressed this in his letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia (which might easily be turned into a powerful argument against the Reformation itself).
He went so far as to call Zwingli a non-Christian (Unchrist), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Confession on the Lords Supper).
His personal interview with him at Marburg (October, 1529) produced no change, but rather intensified his dislike.
He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy.
(Wider etliche Rottengeister, Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in De Wette’s edition of L. Briefe, Vol. IV. pp. 352, 353).
And even shortly before his death, unnecessarily offended by a new publication of Zwingli’s works, he renewed the eucharistic controversy in his Short Confession on the Lord’s Supper (1544, in Walch’s edition, Vol. XX. p. 2195), in which he abused Zwingli and Oecolampadius as heretics, liars, and murderers of souls, and calls the Reformed generally ‘eingeteufelte [ἐνδιαβολισθέντες], durchteufelte, überteufelte lästerliche Herzen und Lügenmäuler.’
No wonder that even the gentle Melanchthon called this a ‘most atrocious book,’ and gave up all hope for union (letter to Bullinger, Aug. 30, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 475: ‘Atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in quo bellum περὶ δείπνου κυριακοῦ instaurat;’ comp. also his letter to Bucer, Aug. 28, 1544, in Corp. Reform. Vol. V. p. 474, both quoted also by Gieseler, Vol. IV. p. 412, note 38, and p. 434, note 37).
But it should in justice be added, first, that Luther’s heart was better than his temper, and, secondly, that he never said a word against Calvin; . . .”
(The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I, 1877, revised by Philip Schaff: 5th edition in 1884; this is the 6th edition from 1931; Chapter Six, section 45; p. 260)
Here are some very telling excerpts from the aforementioned letter of Luther’s:
And recently God has notably punished the poor people of Switzerland, Zwingli and his followers, for they were hardened and perverted, condemned of themselves, as St. Paul says.
They will all experience the same.
Although neither Munzerites nor Zwinglians will admit that they are punished by God, but give out that they are martyrs,
Nevertheless we, who know that they have gravely erred in the sacrament and other articles, recognize God’s punishment and beware of it ourselves.
Not that we rejoice in their misfortune, which is and always has been a sorrow to our hearts, but we cannot let the witness of God pass unnoticed.
We hope from the bottom of our hearts that they are saved, as it is not impossible for God to convert a man in a moment at his death;
But to call them martyrs implies that they died for a certain divine faith, which they did not.
We do not send criminals whom we execute to hell, but we do not for that reason make martyrs of them.
. . . We must believe that this is a chastisement of God, of which they cannot boast . . .
Wherefore I warn your Grace, and beg that you will avoid such people and not suffer them in your land. . . .
For if you allow any to teach against the long and unanimously held doctrine of the Church when you can prevent it, it may well be called an unbearable burden to conscience. . . .
For we must not trifle with the articles of faith so long and unanimously held by Christendom . . .
(Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Luther, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911, 291-292; letter from Wittenberg, “February or beginning of March, 1532)
Luther’s general thought on the question of execution of heretics was expressed in a statement from his Home-Postils in 1533:
The worldly authorities bear the sword with orders to prevent all scandal, so that it may not enter and inflict harm.
But the most dangerous and horrible scandal is where false doctrine and worship penetrates . . .
They (i.e., State officials) must resist it (i.e., such scandal) stoutly, and realize that nothing else will avail save their use of the sword and of the full extent of their power in order to preserve the doctrine pure and the worship clean and undefiled.
(in Erasmus and Luther: Their Attitude to Toleration, Robert H. Murray, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920, p. 274; documentation of German primary sources in the footnotes; parentheses in this work)
Thus, in accordance with this mentality of secular states executing persons because of their religious beliefs (and in light of his thought about Zwinglians and God’s judgment),
We see his chilling reaction to the martyrdoms of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher:
The fierceness of his zeal was blinding him increasingly.
He rejoiced at the death of those rare spirits, Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, in 1535.
His joy arose in part from the circumstance that the latter had just been created a member of the Sacred College.
“Oh, that our Right Reverend Cardinals, Popes and Roman Legates,” he wrote, “had more kings of England to destroy them.” (Ibid., p. 274)
This lovely sentiment was expressed in a letter to Philip Melanchthon in the beginning of December 1535. It is reprinted in Luther’s Works, Vol. 50: Letters III, 113-117. Luther opines (p. 115):
It is quite easy for someone who knows what kind of traitors, thiefs, robbers, and even devils the most reverend lord cardinals, popes, and their ambassadors are, to have second thoughts.
I wish there would be more kings of England who would slay them.
Footnote 9 mentions the editor’s opinion that this statement might relate to St. John Fisher’s execution; cf. similar citation in Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work, Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1950, p. 415; he provides some of the original Latin from primary source Briefwechsel, Vol. X, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliae, qui eos occiderent“. His version (translated from his German to English) is as follows:
One is apt to fly into a passion, when one realizes what traitors, thieves, murderers, yea, veritable devils the cardinals, popes, and their legates are. Would they had several kings of England to execute them.
The Catholic Encyclopedia describes St. John Fisher’s last days:
In June a special commission for Fisher’s trial was issued, and on 17 June he was arraigned in Westminster Hall on a charge of treason, in that he denied the king to be supreme head of the Church.
St. John Fisher
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08462b.htm
Since he had been deprived of his bishopric by the Act of Attainder, he was treated as a commoner, and tried by jury.
He was declared guilty, and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, but the mode of execution was changed, and instead he was beheaded on Tower Hill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered
The martyr’s last moments were thoroughly in keeping with his previous life.
He met death on 22 June 1535, with a calm dignified courage which profoundly impressed all present.
His headless body was stripped and left on the scaffold till evening, when it was thrown naked into a grave in the churchyard of Allhallows, Barking.
Thence it was removed a fortnight later and laid beside that of Sir Thomas More in the church of St. Peter ad Vincula by the Tower.
His head was stuck upon a pole on London Bridge, but its ruddy and lifelike appearance excited so much attention that, after a fortnight, it was thrown into the Thames, its place being taken by that of Sir Thomas More, whose martyrdom occurred on 6 July next following.
Dec 17, 2017 07:44:22 #
Doc110 wrote:
10/31/2017 Luther on the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Th... (show quote)
Do you ever have an original thought or are you just good for vast amounts of cut and paste?
Dec 17, 2017 09:35:54 #
And apparently, mwdegutis,
a. You can't Read, . . . Write . . . and or Religiously and Historically, Comprehend. . . .
To my OPP Religious Article posted . . . . ? ? ? "Luther on the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, & St. John Fisher."
It's an interesting and factual religious and historical read . . . Don't you think, mwdegutis ?
Now that's a laughable rhetorical question and statement. . . . ! ! !
That's if you even read the article ? . . . And as most religious Evangelical "Trolls" do, . . .
a. They don't read the article, . . . but, . . . only religiously comment negativity, . . .
By using a Red-Herring Straw-Man fallacy idiom, by a. criticizing, b. name calling, or c. by deflecting their answer with some discombobulated opinion or statement.
b. Nor do you mwdegutis, . . . have the Evangelical education and or the Evangelical Writing skills to (Evangelically, Factually and Coherently), ability to retort and comment with a statement, on the Article.
c. The Intent of the article is and was, and with my editing, on the original article. (See URL Link) . . .
mwdegutis, was to provide too the OPP Forum Reader, . . . to read the Facts of the article and respond or not respond with their e.g.
1. Use their logical sound knowledge, of their religious and historical brain,
2. Would formulate their religious or historical opinion and statement to the Article.
But, you mwdegutis,
Have done neither . . .
1. You have Not, Provided, a written logical sound knowledge statement to the OPP Religious article ? ? ?
2. Not, to Formulate a logical opinion and statement to the Article ? ? ?
You mwdegutis, In your reply retort and with your previous vitriol hatred of my Catholicism and your inability to respond to any religious questions asked. . . .
To, any and all, religiously and historically question's posed to you . . .
And now I've been (counting) . . . Ten days straight . . .
Your inability and evasive evangelical tactic of not responding to . . ."Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura."[/b]
Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping,
mwdegutis, It seem's that you can't formulate an opinion and retort your (Evangelical answer's), by not, using religiously and historical thought, and not using sound Biblical scripture and verse's.
Now the simple question, . . . beg's to be asked, . . . once again? . . . Now why is that ? ? ?
mwdegutis, you still seem to be "High & Mighty" silent . . . on answering my "Cut-&-Paste Article's, "Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura."
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-119691-1.html
Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
You still haven't Scripturally responded to the 12/07/2017 Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (Part 1 of 21)
Still waiting, for some scriptural facts on the (Below 21, Questions), posed to you.
So are we waiting for the game of wack-a-mole, when you rear your ugly Independent Christian anti-Catholic head once again.
Here are the Questions and the answers to the 21 questions, summary and foot note's.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-119691-1.html
There are 21 questions and Reasons to Reject "Sola Scriptura," Misguided Protestant, Evangelical Independent theology.
1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.
3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”
4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.
5. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.
6. The first Christians did not have a Bible.
7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa.
8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.
9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.
10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.
11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination.
13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.
14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.
15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.
17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books.
21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.
Summary:
For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected.
Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught. –
Even if those contradict one’s current religious system. –
This should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this Protestant doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.
The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established.
According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority.
Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:
a. The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church;
b. The Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation –
c. Both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or
indirect rule of faith.
d. Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church –
e. A historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession –
f. Is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine.
g. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20).
It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.
I'm still Waiting . . . . mwdegutis, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
[quote=mwdegutis
Do you ever have an original thought, or are you just good, for vast amounts of cut and paste?[/quote]
a. You can't Read, . . . Write . . . and or Religiously and Historically, Comprehend. . . .
To my OPP Religious Article posted . . . . ? ? ? "Luther on the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, & St. John Fisher."
It's an interesting and factual religious and historical read . . . Don't you think, mwdegutis ?
Now that's a laughable rhetorical question and statement. . . . ! ! !
That's if you even read the article ? . . . And as most religious Evangelical "Trolls" do, . . .
a. They don't read the article, . . . but, . . . only religiously comment negativity, . . .
By using a Red-Herring Straw-Man fallacy idiom, by a. criticizing, b. name calling, or c. by deflecting their answer with some discombobulated opinion or statement.
b. Nor do you mwdegutis, . . . have the Evangelical education and or the Evangelical Writing skills to (Evangelically, Factually and Coherently), ability to retort and comment with a statement, on the Article.
c. The Intent of the article is and was, and with my editing, on the original article. (See URL Link) . . .
mwdegutis, was to provide too the OPP Forum Reader, . . . to read the Facts of the article and respond or not respond with their e.g.
1. Use their logical sound knowledge, of their religious and historical brain,
2. Would formulate their religious or historical opinion and statement to the Article.
But, you mwdegutis,
Have done neither . . .
1. You have Not, Provided, a written logical sound knowledge statement to the OPP Religious article ? ? ?
2. Not, to Formulate a logical opinion and statement to the Article ? ? ?
You mwdegutis, In your reply retort and with your previous vitriol hatred of my Catholicism and your inability to respond to any religious questions asked. . . .
To, any and all, religiously and historically question's posed to you . . .
And now I've been (counting) . . . Ten days straight . . .
Your inability and evasive evangelical tactic of not responding to . . ."Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura."[/b]
Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping,
mwdegutis, It seem's that you can't formulate an opinion and retort your (Evangelical answer's), by not, using religiously and historical thought, and not using sound Biblical scripture and verse's.
Now the simple question, . . . beg's to be asked, . . . once again? . . . Now why is that ? ? ?
mwdegutis, you still seem to be "High & Mighty" silent . . . on answering my "Cut-&-Paste Article's, "Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura."
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-119691-1.html
Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
You still haven't Scripturally responded to the 12/07/2017 Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura (Part 1 of 21)
Still waiting, for some scriptural facts on the (Below 21, Questions), posed to you.
So are we waiting for the game of wack-a-mole, when you rear your ugly Independent Christian anti-Catholic head once again.
Here are the Questions and the answers to the 21 questions, summary and foot note's.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-119691-1.html
There are 21 questions and Reasons to Reject "Sola Scriptura," Misguided Protestant, Evangelical Independent theology.
1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.
3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”
4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.
5. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.
6. The first Christians did not have a Bible.
7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa.
8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.
9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.
10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.
11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination.
13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.
14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.
15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.
17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books.
21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.
Summary:
For all these reasons, then, it is evident that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an utterly unbiblical, man-made, erroneous belief which must be wholly rejected.
Those who are genuine Christian believers and who have a commitment to the truths that Jesus Christ taught. –
Even if those contradict one’s current religious system. –
This should be compelled by the evidence to see the inherent flaws in this Protestant doctrine, flaws which are clearly obvious from Scripture, logic and history.
The fullness of religious truth, unmixed with error, is found only in the Catholic Church, the very Church which Jesus Christ Himself established.
According to the teaching of this Church, founded by Christ, Sola Scriptura is a distorted, truncated view of Christian authority.
Rather, the true rule of faith for the followers of Christ is this:
a. The immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church;
b. The Church in turn takes her teaching from Divine Revelation –
c. Both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition," which together form the remote or
indirect rule of faith.
d. Scripture and Tradition are the inspired sources of Christian doctrine, while the Church –
e. A historical and visible entity dating back to St. Peter and the Apostles in an uninterrupted succession –
f. Is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine.
g. It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that followers of Christ know they are adhering to all the things that He commanded His Apostles to teach (cf. Matt. 28:20).
It is only by accepting this complete Christian rule of faith that the followers of Christ are assured of possessing the whole truth which Christ taught, and nothing but that truth.
I'm still Waiting . . . . mwdegutis, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . . Crickets chirping, . . .
[quote=mwdegutis
Do you ever have an original thought, or are you just good, for vast amounts of cut and paste?[/quote]
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.