Crazymanw00t said:
For year and years that the Roman Catholics were following the Bible and then it drifts away for some reasons.
This is weak. I think you need to study history some more, and i recommend Hans Kung's
A Short History of the Catholic Church. Kung's book is very concise, yet thoroughly researched and stands up to every scrutiny.
For example Justification through good works. Of Course the Church leaders were responsible for whole that drifting the Bible to worldliness. The Church Leaders are responsible to runs the church and spread the gospel. If the Church Leader made some mistakes and it will messes up with the gospel, doctrine, church, and put vain in God’s word.
I think you need to remove those Protestant eyeglasses and see clearly the pattern of church leaders, beyond the rhetoric. If you can do this, you can speak without resorting to distortion and one-sided polemics like this.
Martin Luther spoke against Roman Catholic for whole their false doctrine and gospel that they told to everyone in past. Martin Luther re-read the Bible and clear up all those false doctrine and gospel. Martin Luther wanted everyone to be able to read Bible and follow it exactly.
This is somewhat of an oversimplification.
Martin Luther originally was convinced of witchcraft and saw nChristianity as a constant battle against Satan. There was an anxiety during the age of Reformation (if you dont mind me using textbook oversimplifications here) and Martin tried to address this anxiety by articulating a new religious awareness.
There was no "corruption" of the Church, nor was there a decline of religious fervor. In Europe there was a renewal of religious enthusiasm that allowed people to criticize the abuses they had taken for granted. In other words, all the ideas of the reformers came from the medieval and catholic theologies. they did not articulate a new conception of God at all.
The rise of "individualism" in europe helped creeate a radical revision of religious attitudes, in the 16th century, and this in turn meant people moved from expressing their faith in external and collective ways to an internal mode, and explored the interior consequences of religion.
But for Luther, he stopped believing that God could be appeased at all:
Although I lived a blameless life as a monk, i felt that i was a sinner with an uneasy conscience before God. I also could not believe that i had pleased him with my works. Far from loving that righteous God who punished sinners, i actually loathed him. I was a good monk, and kept my order so strictly that if a monk could get to heaven by monastic discipline, I was that monk. All my companions in the monastery would confirm this. ... And yet my conscience would not give me certainty, but i always doubted and said, 'you didn't do that right. you weren't contrite enough. you left that out of your confession.'
(Reformation Thought, by Alister Mcgrath)
In other words, Luther's GOd was essentially a wrathful deity. nobody, not even the saints, prophets, none of them could endure the divine anger, for it's not enough to just do your best, because God was eternal and omnipotent:
"His fury or wrath towards self-satisfied sinners is also immesurable and infinite." (Commentary on Psalm)
The observance of the Law of GOd or the rules of religion cannot save anyone, for the Law is limited to accusation and terror - we are inadequate through and through. Instead of a message of hope, the Law was basically the wrath of God. Since man cannot save himself, God provides the justification - that was Luther's doctrine of justification - where the relationship between the sinner and God was restored. Luther remained pessimistic for the rest of his life (see his THeology of the Cross) and even he didn't think the existence of God could be proved.
John Calvin and Martin Luther were on same page. John Calvin, he just pointed out from the Bible with the five points (TULIP) to show everyone the roots from the Bible. Therefore Calvinism is following the Bible because Calvinism believes in sola script (only scripts).
John Calvin is more important than Luther, in the long run.
However, the later day theology of predestination is the result of the elimination of paradox and mystery of God, no longer poetry but logical. Once the interpretation of the God of bible is literal, instead of symbolically, the idea of God becomes impossible. The deity, being literally responsible for everything that happens on earth, inspires impossible contradictions and a vision of God as a despotic tyrant.
What standard were you speaking of?
Whatever standard of truth you suppose in the first place. If the bible is your standard of truth, then by what truth did you determine that the Bible was true? you can't refer to it without begging the question, just like Redfox so aptly demonstrated.
I use the Bible as my standard because the Bible is Words of God. Therefore if something isn't from the Bible and it must be false. If something came from the Bible and then it must be true. "Sola Script" and it means only scripts.That is whole point with the Calvinism.
I'm aware of Calvinism, and by the way, it's
sola scriptura, and i'm also aware of its limitations.
You don't need to say
during the debate and that is not very polite.
I'm not a polite man, for i am no politician who speaks from both sides of my mouth. I feel something i use an emoticon to express it, and since i am posting on alldeaf, the visual emoticon carries more punch than mere words.
The word it could be taken to mean that the entity is a thing lower than a person in worth. To avoid confusion, I'll use the word entity.