Martin Luther was right. They are still like this.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (15)
sorted by:
The Roman Catholic Church who led inquisitions so corrupt and cruel they would make the devil blush?
Then you want to look 500 years later to blame Luther's stand against evil for today's falling away? They are teaching you rhetoric to make you serve the Pope and his empire.
I never said RC wasn't corrupt - sure it was, but Reformation was used as a tool by the jews.
But the reasons the Western Church was bad has nothing to do with the usual enlightenment jewish propaganda hurled at them like crusades, burning witches and inquisition. Most of those were based actually. It's even more ridiculous when protestants cry about RCC being cruel, when protestant sects were wantonly killing each other for centuries and engaging in much of the same behavior.
What's bad about the crusades exactly? That Christians got together to wage war against the invading muslims? If anything, I give props to the Catholics back then because they at last weren't cucked and defended their faith and people, unlike today.
This is exactly the false dialectic of western Christianity. Both RC and Protestantism are false, that's the point. In fact, the Pope became the first protestant when he assumed supremacy over the Church (effectively replacing Christ as the head and becoming a cult leader) and started making changes to the teachings and doctrines (like the filioque or much of thomistic scholasticism which the Protestants inherited). Thus RCC became a centralized geopolitical power with standing armies and banks and was rightfully criticized by Luther. But Luther instead of setting things straight went on and created his own tradition, becoming his own Pope and set the precedent of everyone being their own Pope - having interpretative authority just by reading the Bible. But Christianity is one and not many. The Nicean creed affirms only one holy, catholic and apostolic Church which is the Body of Christ and which is guided by the Spirit until the end of times.
There were many muslim attacks abroad, but the Crusades only happened in a limited region. Such a small area. If it was anti-muslim measures, why was their area of influence so small? Were they weak?
What did the Bereans do?
So does baby baptism work or no? Is the Rapture pre, mid, or post trib? This is a broad claim to tackle.
As in universal. Not RC.
Meaning? As in, the Apostles of the Bible? Or do you think there can be new ones made today?
Not interested in debating this. The crusades covered a lot of ground and took Jerusalem which was their main goal.
You're taking this out of context. Preaching the gospel to the jews was done so that they can understand that Jesus is Christ, the Messiah that their prophets wrote about and that they've been waiting. But it was Paul, who was an apostle of the Church, who instructed them in the teachings and made known to them the correct interpretation of the Scripture (meaning the Old Testament here) where Christ's coming was prophesized. I hope you're aware there wasn't a written Bible at that time.
Yes, the Church has always practiced infant baptism and it's in the Bible. There's no rapture - this is part of the millenarist heresy condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. It was promoted by jesuits and later popularized by John Darby in the 19th century along with other zionist teaching.
Correct. Once again, I'm not Roman Catholic.
Meaning the apostles of the Bible upon whom Christ sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They are the foundation of the Church. Just like there were no more prophets after John The Baptist, likewise there were no more apostles after the last one of them died. This is why Islam, Mormonism and all the cults claiming new revelation are false.
It wasn't simply "corrupt", it is clearly of the devil.
Communists killed LGBTQ, by your standards they are now Christian saints. No, what is shows is that killing one of your enemies doesn't imply that organization is good.
I can't think of a single Bible believing church looking to Luther for any tradition. They all look to scripture.
After admitting the Pope is wicked you imply a need for a Pope. There is none found in scripture. Jesus said "call no man father", it couldn't be more clear.
By that logic I need a "Papa" (or Pope) to even read what you wrote. How am I to interpret anything you said unless a Pope first tells me in his own words? Absurd when you think about it.
No, I didn't. I imply the need of a decentralized synodal Church - the way the Church of the first thousand years was ran, which is the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
No, there's no such passage in Scripture. Mathew 23:9 says "call no man your father". But Peter refers to Mark as his son and as does Paul to Timothy. It's such a bizarre literalist argument - what, you think calling your biological dad father is going against Jesus' command? Furthermore, it denies the patriarchal order made by God here on Earth, which mirrors the monarchical patriarchy within the Trinity (Father - Son - Spirit). A man is the father of his family. A priest is a father of his parish. Patriarchs or bishops are fathers of the Church. A monarch/king is a father to the nation - all the way going to Christ and His Father. This is how the world was conceived of by people for thousands of years of Christianity (going back to the OT).
He also said "call no man your teacher" - so what's up with that? This is a word-concept fallacy - the title "father" is not the same as the relationship. The point Jesus makes is that our loyalty lies to our Father in heaven and not in something found in this world.
Here's a short video on the orthodox perspective on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K8m2BADWrI
There's literally an Evangelical Lutheran Church. But my point was that Luther set the precedent of every person being their own authority in interpretation of Scripture. This is why there's not a single Protestant Church but thousands of denominations. And each one contradicts the other in some way. It's pluralism.
Day to day communication is not the same as interpretation of an ancient sacred text, that is part of a living tradition which keeps and passes down the correct teachings and correct interpretation. Texts don't interpret themselves. I, as an Orthodox Christian believe the correct interpretation is within the Church, given to us by the Church Fathers and not by a single person.
Of course you can misinterpret what I wrote - and you obviously do because you hold Protestant presuppositions, and everything I say about Christianity is interpreted through that lens. This is fine, people constantly misinterpret each other. The problem is when you have a very specific dogmatic teaching where correct interpretation is crucial for that tradition. Even one small mistake can lead to the degradation of the faith and falling away from the Church. Every heresy and false teaching is the result of incorrect interpretation (even if they continue as big traditions of their own like the Non-Chalcedonians, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam).