Heresy or error?

[Wrangler]

You want facts from Luther's writings just do a google search. Here is a link on the church and its history RE: Naziism.

The German Churches and the Nazi State

How did Christians and their churches in Germany respond to the Nazi regime and its laws, particularly to the persecution of the Jews? Learn more.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

I am not doubting that Luther was antiemitic. I am doubting your claim that he was directly responsible for the holocaust. From your article:

The racialized anti-Jewish Nazi ideology converged with antisemitism that was historically widespread throughout Europe at the time and had deep roots in Christian history.​

Notice how it doesn't say anything like what you claim?

 

[David H.]

I am not doubting that Luther was antiemitic. I am doubting your claim that he was directly responsible for the holocaust. From your article:
The racialized anti-Jewish Nazi ideology converged with antisemitism that was historically widespread throughout Europe at the time and had deep roots in Christian history.
Notice how it doesn't say anything like what you claim?

The wikipedia article should show you what those deep roots are.... Luther himself was German and Protestantism was the prevailing religion in Germany and Hitler played into these antisemitic teachings in Protestantism. Any one who knows any history at all will confirm this. I Myself was born into the Lutheran church (Baptized as an infant).

 

[David H.]

I am not doubting that Luther was antiemitic.

The wikipedia article should show you what those deep roots are.... Luther himself was German and Protestantism was the prevailing religion in Germany and Hitler played into these antisemitic teachings in Protestantism. Any one who knows any history at all will confirm this. I Myself was born into the Lutheran church (Baptized as an infant).

May I suggest you also read the writings of Deitrich Bonhoeffer as well.

 

[marks]

First of all, no one said they were sinless.

You are right, most of those who write about being sinless don't actually come out and say they are, they tend to just write as if they were, so that they others will infer that the writer is in fact sinless.

It's an ungodly word game, and others can see it too.

The writer speaks as though they have reached "holiness", or as if they are sinless, while perpetually skirting the question whenever they are directly asked.

I see this over and over again, as does anyone who is paying attention.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I invite challenge to what I teach.

And you bully those who disagree with you. If you disagree, show otherwise. How many times have I seen you denigrate personally those who disagree with you? I can't begin to count! I've seen if from my first days on this forum years ago.

Again, if you think this doesn't represent reality, I'm happy to be wrong! I only ask, that you demonstrate a real dialog with others. Even when they disagree.

Much love!

 

[marks]

With fear? You made 6 podcasts with a whole lot of rambling brother and condemning others according to your worldview.
Here in South Africa it's called "waffling"

It's more dismissive just to chalk up your objections to some emotional reaction like "fear", not that you could have a Biblical objection, right? No . . . you are afraid!

And now the topic is your emotional state, not the doctrine. And that's how that game works.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Everytime anyone begins talking about this I get real confused. I used to think, oh one day I’m sure I will understand it but…I’m beginning to think I never will. I think maybe men have mucked it up.

I don’t think holy is a good word to use for both men and God. Too confusing. So I understand sanctification as a process of being increasingly set aside for Gods use but I cant see sanctified as meaning holy. When I think, holy, holy, holy, the definition is in my head as…unspeakable. When angels say holy, holy, holy, they can not be saying of God that God is set aside for Gods own use.

God makes something - someone - holy even if we don't see that. Faith, not sight.

The answer is, we are a new creation being trained to rule over the old creation, which still influences our behaviors, feelings, and thoughts.

We are recreated new people, now we are to act like those new people, and not like the old.

Much love!

 

[marks]

All you are showing is your indoctrination into the dogma of Protestantism and are not searching for the truth of the Word

Why do you become personally denigrating? Is it to discourage a true discussion? To avoid a real response? Why not answer instead of deflect by disparaging others? Seriously?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Such potential for good and godly discussion tanked by such poor form!!

It's a pity!!

 

[marks]

To be frank with you, the one indoctrinated is you friend, go and play your silly games somewhere else please.
J.

You too. Disparagement instead of mature interaction.

Why do I bother?? Who cares about this but me?

Much love!

 

[marks]

to the saints and to the faithful. That’s Greek.

In Greek it means either "and", that is, this one and that one (two different ones) or it means "even", that is, this one, even that one (the same one called in two different ways).

"Our God and Savior Jesus Christ", when written in Koine Greek, can be understood as indication both "our God, and our Savior", and can also be understood as "our God, Who is our Savior".

This is called the "copulative and explicative use of Kai"

Context must be used to determine which is meant.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I can't answer for sure, but our men's group is studying through Paul's epistle to Timothy where Paul lists the qualifications for particular elders who will also teach the church. In his second epistle to Timothy he says this.

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 3 Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 2:1-3

This seems to imply that some men might not be qualified to teach based on the fact that they are unreliable or unfaithful at times. Timothy is to seek out "faithful men" who will be able to teach others.

If Paul has two groups in mind, in the first chapter of Ephesians, perhaps the larger group is "saints" and among that larger group there exists "faithful men" who teach.

If true, perhaps we can paraphrase it this way, "Paul, to the saints who live in Ephesus and those faithful men who lead you . . ."

I don't know. I am thinking through this out loud because I know there are some pretty smart people here.

This seems like a very good point!

Much love!

 

[marks]

Context, definition, and grammar. Three basic components of good hermeneutics. Grammar being the most disregarded because it's more difficult to apply. Then when it does give evidence to believe 'otherwise' - we should!

Yes!

Syntax settles so many disagreements, but so many are unwilling to hear it!

Much love!

 

[marks]

By their fruits you shall know them.

What is the fruit of the Spirit? Good character?

What is the fruit of the flesh?

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and I address this to everyone who has given their unkind words to others.

Much love! That's what we should be showing, not just stepping on people when we - for whatever reason - don't like what they say.

 

[amigo de christo]

Time on deck is , LORD PRAISING TIME in the building .
SO let all that has breath praise and thank the LORD .

 

[amigo de christo]

By their fruits you shall know them.

What is the fruit of the Spirit? Good character?

What is the fruit of the flesh?

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and I address this to everyone who has given their unkind words to others.

Much love! That's what we should be showing, not just stepping on people when we - for whatever reason - don't like what they say.

Lord praising time mark . SO let the KING be praised

 

[Lizbeth]

Is that right though?

Can we be sure that God has the same plans for each of us? I'm thinking that different people have different ministries and gifts, as Paul wrote in Corinthians.

Much love!

Amen. In any case I would say most who have been on the path of maturing have seen God working and heard His voice at various times along the way. It's such a normal part of Christian life now and again that we don't make a fuss over these things and tend to take it almost for granted and not really go around calling it miracles.

And there are lot more miracles that happen within so-called Protestant circles than in Catholicism, as well as many more souls have been brought to Christ in genuine conversion by the Holy Spirit since the Reformation, than have happened among Catholics who only get converted to their "church" instead of being converted to Christ.....it's boggling my mind how those who don't believe in imputed righteousness consider Protestant evangelical churches in general to be more spiritually dangerous than the Catholic institution. Granted, today's evangelical churches in the west are on a downward slide and in very bad condition spiritually, but I'm talking overall since the Reformation.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

You are right, most of those who write about being sinless don't actually come out and say they are, they tend to just write as if they were, so that they others will infer that the writer is in fact sinless.

It's an ungodly word game, and others can see it too.

The writer speaks as though they have reached "holiness", or as if they are sinless, while perpetually skirting the question whenever they are directly asked.

I see this over and over again, as does anyone who is paying attention.

Much love!

No one can help what unfounded conclusions you arrive at.

 

[marks]

It's such a normal part of Christian life now and again that we don't make a fuss over these things and tend to take it almost for granted and not really go around calling it miracles.

Yes, I think so, as you mention it . . .

And there are lot more miracles that happen within so-called Protestant circles than in Catholicism, as well as many more souls have been brought to Christ in genuine conversion by the Holy Spirit since the Reformation, than have happened among Catholics who only get converted to their "church" instead of being converted to Christ.....it's boggling my mind how those who don't believe in imputed righteousness consider Protestant evangelical churches in general to be more spiritually dangerous than the Catholic institution. Granted, today's evangelical churches in the west are on a downward slide and in very bad condition spiritually, but I'm talking overall since the Reformation.

I don't know about how many, but I know what you are saying. Certain theologies don't position us well to trust God implicitly.

When we think that He accepts/rejects us based on what we do, we tend to feel rejected (if we're being honest with ourselves) because we judge my what we see.

When we think that He accepts us purely based on what Jesus did, we tend to feel accepted.

And if we feel rejected, where is our faith?

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

And you bully those who disagree with you. If you disagree, show otherwise. How many times have I seen you denigrate personally those who disagree with you? I can't begin to count! I've seen if from my first days on this forum years ago.

Again, if you think this doesn't represent reality, I'm happy to be wrong! I only ask, that you demonstrate a real dialog with others. Even when they disagree.

Much love!

Imposing your ego here only derails the subject of the thread...and all the others. These threads are not about you. But your mission seems to direct about everything to how you feel. No way the truth gets through that.

Have you addressed the OP or are you leading in once again with your ego? Are you following me around? I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think you are able to look beyond how you feel...about yourself. As in...how does this doctrine make me feel?

That's the part that needs to go to the cross.