Luther 100% correct in his actions?
- Thread starter Red_Letters88
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(His By Grace;38805)
I would have to credit that to the Holy Spirit. I don't think He left us with anything incomplete. It has withstood all this time and is sufficient for what we need. I am not at all worried about anything Luther did or didn't do. My God is bigger than that.
So if understood you are saying that for almost 1500 years the Holy Spirit could not do anything about shortening the OT until Luther came along and that instead of not being complete for 1500 years the Bible all Christians used just had too many books. So it was not a matter of being complete but too much added. So for 1500 years the Spirit was able to preserve the Bible as complete and protect it from repeat attacks, but could not in that time get the books removed that one must believe did not belong there.
I would have to credit that to the Holy Spirit. I don't think He left us with anything incomplete. It has withstood all this time and is sufficient for what we need. I am not at all worried about anything Luther did or didn't do. My God is bigger than that.
So if understood you are saying that for almost 1500 years the Holy Spirit could not do anything about shortening the OT until Luther came along and that instead of not being complete for 1500 years the Bible all Christians used just had too many books. So it was not a matter of being complete but too much added. So for 1500 years the Spirit was able to preserve the Bible as complete and protect it from repeat attacks, but could not in that time get the books removed that one must believe did not belong there.
(DrBubbaLove;38842)
(His By Grace;38805)
I would have to credit that to the Holy Spirit. I don't think He left us with anything incomplete. It has withstood all this time and is sufficient for what we need. I am not at all worried about anything Luther did or didn't do. My God is bigger than that.
So if understood you are saying that for almost 1500 years the Holy Spirit could not do anything about shortening the OT until Luther came along and that instead of not being complete for 1500 years the Bible all Christians used just had too many books. So it was not a matter of being complete but too much added.So for 1500 years the Spirit was able to preserve the Bible as complete and protect it from repeat attacks, but could not in that time get the books removed that one must believe did not belong there.God's Words alone is what we need. The Spirit teaches us Truth, not men.(lastsecman;38639)
Protestants don't put their trust in Luther. Because God alone is the mastermind, not Luther....
(His By Grace;38805)
I would have to credit that to the Holy Spirit. I don't think He left us with anything incomplete. It has withstood all this time and is sufficient for what we need. I am not at all worried about anything Luther did or didn't do. My God is bigger than that.
So if understood you are saying that for almost 1500 years the Holy Spirit could not do anything about shortening the OT until Luther came along and that instead of not being complete for 1500 years the Bible all Christians used just had too many books. So it was not a matter of being complete but too much added.So for 1500 years the Spirit was able to preserve the Bible as complete and protect it from repeat attacks, but could not in that time get the books removed that one must believe did not belong there.God's Words alone is what we need. The Spirit teaches us Truth, not men.(lastsecman;38639)
Protestants don't put their trust in Luther. Because God alone is the mastermind, not Luther....
There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul's time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church. Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther. The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon. The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
I would never say the Holy Spirit couldn't do something. That would be silly of me. Of course, I think He can do anything He wants. I do believe that what we have today is, as I said, sufficient. There may be a reason the OT was as it was for the period of 1500 years. Maybe those folks needed more words to be convinced than we do. Maybe they felt more religious back in the day to carry around more scrolls. I'm not sure. I do have full confidence that I am not missing out on what the Lord wants to show me in His Word when I seek Him. That's what I'm saying. Do I know everything I could? No. Does anyone else? No. Is it crucial? Depends. If I don't know enough to be saved and keep a relationship going, to witness, to walk by faith, then I have a hole in my vessel. But, I know I have all I need to believe- and more! I'm not dependent upon Luther for my Bible. Just as Gamaliel told the cousel of religious leaders in the book of Acts, if it is of the Lord, nothing will be able to stop it! Luther could not hold back what the Lord intended us to have. I just don't believe it to be possible.
(thesuperjag;38845)
God's Words alone is what we need. The Spirit teaches us Truth, not men.
So the Spirit personally told you that Luther was correct in removing books from the Bible. At which point we can only say, ok sure wish he had told everyone else about this. We cannot argue with someone claiming to be have knowledge directly from God about such a matter.We still would wonder why the same Spirit said nothing to Christians for almost 1500 years. What did they fail to do right that prevented them from getting the same message you got from the God about the shorter canon?
God's Words alone is what we need. The Spirit teaches us Truth, not men.
So the Spirit personally told you that Luther was correct in removing books from the Bible. At which point we can only say, ok sure wish he had told everyone else about this. We cannot argue with someone claiming to be have knowledge directly from God about such a matter.We still would wonder why the same Spirit said nothing to Christians for almost 1500 years. What did they fail to do right that prevented them from getting the same message you got from the God about the shorter canon?
(His By Grace;38847)
I would never say the Holy Spirit couldn't do something. That would be silly of me. Of course, I think He can do anything He wants. I do believe that what we have today is, as I said, sufficient. There may be a reason the OT was as it was for the period of 1500 years. Maybe those folks needed more words to be convinced than we do. Maybe they felt more religious back in the day to carry around more scrolls. I'm not sure. I do have full confidence that I am not missing out on what the Lord wants to show me in His Word when I seek Him. That's what I'm saying. Do I know everything I could? No. Does anyone else? No. Is it crucial? Depends. If I don't know enough to be saved and keep a relationship going, to witness, to walk by faith, then I have a hole in my vessel. But, I know I have all I need to believe- and more! I'm not dependent upon Luther for my Bible. Just as Gamaliel told the cousel of religious leaders in the book of Acts, if it is of the Lord, nothing will be able to stop it! Luther could not hold back what the Lord intended us to have. I just don't believe it to be possible.
But that is the heart of the problem. It is not a matter of what is possible or not possible with God.Either we say God reveals these specific writings as inspired to man or He does not. It makes no sense to say a larger group of inspired books was fine for almost 1500 years but today we need less, fewer inspired works. Either God intended for us to have all those books or He did not. If we say the second case is correct (a shorter canon), then God allowed books to be included in error by Christians for a very long time, close to 75% of the age where there have been Christians. That just does not make sense to me.
I would never say the Holy Spirit couldn't do something. That would be silly of me. Of course, I think He can do anything He wants. I do believe that what we have today is, as I said, sufficient. There may be a reason the OT was as it was for the period of 1500 years. Maybe those folks needed more words to be convinced than we do. Maybe they felt more religious back in the day to carry around more scrolls. I'm not sure. I do have full confidence that I am not missing out on what the Lord wants to show me in His Word when I seek Him. That's what I'm saying. Do I know everything I could? No. Does anyone else? No. Is it crucial? Depends. If I don't know enough to be saved and keep a relationship going, to witness, to walk by faith, then I have a hole in my vessel. But, I know I have all I need to believe- and more! I'm not dependent upon Luther for my Bible. Just as Gamaliel told the cousel of religious leaders in the book of Acts, if it is of the Lord, nothing will be able to stop it! Luther could not hold back what the Lord intended us to have. I just don't believe it to be possible.
But that is the heart of the problem. It is not a matter of what is possible or not possible with God.Either we say God reveals these specific writings as inspired to man or He does not. It makes no sense to say a larger group of inspired books was fine for almost 1500 years but today we need less, fewer inspired works. Either God intended for us to have all those books or He did not. If we say the second case is correct (a shorter canon), then God allowed books to be included in error by Christians for a very long time, close to 75% of the age where there have been Christians. That just does not make sense to me.
(DrBubbaLove;38848)
So the Spirit personally told you that Luther was correct in removing books from the Bible. At which point we can only say, ok sure wish he had told everyone else about this. We cannot argue with someone claiming to be have knowledge directly from God about such a matter.We still would wonder why the same Spirit said nothing to Christians for almost 1500 years. What did they fail to do right that prevented them from getting the same message you got from the God about the shorter canon?
Luther is not God. Get that fact straight. I focus on His words alone. Not Luther. Don't go mixing men and God now...JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
So the Spirit personally told you that Luther was correct in removing books from the Bible. At which point we can only say, ok sure wish he had told everyone else about this. We cannot argue with someone claiming to be have knowledge directly from God about such a matter.We still would wonder why the same Spirit said nothing to Christians for almost 1500 years. What did they fail to do right that prevented them from getting the same message you got from the God about the shorter canon?
Luther is not God. Get that fact straight. I focus on His words alone. Not Luther. Don't go mixing men and God now...JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
I'm just wondering why this is so bothersome to you, but things that are not in the scripture we do have or that are contrary to scripture are practiced by Luther's former church and these things are readily explained by you with no sense of worry, though a man's tradition. It had to have been started by someone and then others proceeded to follow the thinking. Is it because Luther broke away from that and is called a "reformer" that he bothers you? There's something about him that definitely seems to get to you. So, what are we missing in the Catholic Bible that we need to have? Is it anything that changes the message of the gospel? I confess I am not familiar with it.
I just read your last post about saying that some had the whole canon, etc. I was really kind of joking when I commented on them wanting to carry around more and all or that. I don't have an explanation to satisfy you. I just believe in what I have and it's enough for me. Sometimes being so analytical can drive one crazy. Remember the faith of a little child- they don't worry about things like that. I do like to discuss deep things of the Lord, but nothing that would cause me to question my faith or God's Word.
I may not respond to you until tomorrow. I'm headed to get a good night's sleep. We have an early morning-headed to church. Bless you brother, and don't be too bothered by all of this.
(thesuperjag;38851)
Luther is not God. Get that fact straight. I focus on His words alone. Not Luther. Don't go mixing men and God now...JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
Don't think I was mixing God with anybody.In response to my pointing out that for nearly 1500 years and until Luther made an issue of it; that the Canon was longer than the one you use, the reply was that the Spirit teaches "us" Truth not men (Luther).To me the point being made by that statement is that one accepts Luther's shorter Canon NOT because Luther said it was True, but because the Spirit tells us personally that Luther was right. So again I ask, if we agree with this reasoning why would the Spirit tell us personally today to use a shorter canon and for nearly 1500 years say nothing about the longer one used by all Christians?
Luther is not God. Get that fact straight. I focus on His words alone. Not Luther. Don't go mixing men and God now...JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
Don't think I was mixing God with anybody.In response to my pointing out that for nearly 1500 years and until Luther made an issue of it; that the Canon was longer than the one you use, the reply was that the Spirit teaches "us" Truth not men (Luther).To me the point being made by that statement is that one accepts Luther's shorter Canon NOT because Luther said it was True, but because the Spirit tells us personally that Luther was right. So again I ask, if we agree with this reasoning why would the Spirit tell us personally today to use a shorter canon and for nearly 1500 years say nothing about the longer one used by all Christians?
I never seen a bible modern times with a bible older the KJV. What we have now, is what we read.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
DrbubbaloveSome of Your arguments could be turned back on you but it would serve no purpose because you are arguing from a place between a rock and hard place if you accept that the Bible as we have it is the Only true inspired Work of God you would have to deny your Religions own Bible and sense you can not do that you can never accept our Faith in it (the Bible) alone so you have no winning postion to take except to argue the Bible is not complete.
Kriss,my Bible is complete, the same one that was complete for nearly 1500 years before your shorter version first appears. Other than that there is no difference between our Bibles. Am just trying to understand how others justify accepting a shorter canon. So far the only reasonable justification is that the Spirit leads one to accept the shorter canon, which begs the question why the same Spirit would lead Christians to accept the longer canon for so long.
(DrBubbaLove;38862)
Kriss,my Bible is complete, the same one that was complete for nearly 1500 years before your shorter version first appears. Other than that there is no difference between our Bibles. Am just trying to understand how others justify accepting a shorter canon. So far the only reasonable justification is that the Spirit leads one to accept the shorter canon, which begs the question why the same Spirit would lead Christians to accept the longer canon for so long.
You know, actually Byzantine Texts and Alexandrian Texts never goes along so well. So yes there is a difference, actually major difference between bibles.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
Kriss,my Bible is complete, the same one that was complete for nearly 1500 years before your shorter version first appears. Other than that there is no difference between our Bibles. Am just trying to understand how others justify accepting a shorter canon. So far the only reasonable justification is that the Spirit leads one to accept the shorter canon, which begs the question why the same Spirit would lead Christians to accept the longer canon for so long.
You know, actually Byzantine Texts and Alexandrian Texts never goes along so well. So yes there is a difference, actually major difference between bibles.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
My question has gone unanswered. Is there anything in the dropped books that we need that we don't have in the shorter version of the canon we have now? That is what is important. If no information is missing, then what's the problem. The gospel message is the same throughout with great consistency. That may be the problem with the extra books. Are they consistent with the rest of the Bible?
(His By Grace;38886)
My question has gone unanswered. Is there anything in the dropped books that we need that we don't have in the shorter version of the canon we have now? That is what is important. If no information is missing, then what's the problem. The gospel message is the same throughout with great consistency. That may be the problem with the extra books. Are they consistent with the rest of the Bible?
The extra biblical books are not part of the Word of God, but some say that they can use it as a second witnesses if they are in agreement with the Word.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
My question has gone unanswered. Is there anything in the dropped books that we need that we don't have in the shorter version of the canon we have now? That is what is important. If no information is missing, then what's the problem. The gospel message is the same throughout with great consistency. That may be the problem with the extra books. Are they consistent with the rest of the Bible?
The extra biblical books are not part of the Word of God, but some say that they can use it as a second witnesses if they are in agreement with the Word.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
(thesuperjag;38863)
You know, actually Byzantine Texts and Alexandrian Texts never goes along so well. So yes there is a difference, actually major difference between bibles.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
Jag, We should not switch topics to textual concerns in a discussion about the Canon. Are you trying to change your answer, or do you stand by your first claim that the Spirit told you that the shorter canon was the one to use. No need to switch topics. In the 4th century and though the issue had been a hot topic for centuries, whenever it came up the list grew longer, but once on an agreed to list Rome never took a book off. The longer canon was established as a list officially by Pope Damasus in 382 in directing a new translation, the Latin version, we call the Vulgate. That same canon is used by the Church today. The Alexandrian and Byzantine textual differences between VERSIONS which has nothing to do with canons and primarily concern the NT as far as textual concerns go, and in any case I would not consider those differences MAJOR even though there are significant differences in text. It is no different than comparing KJV with RSV or NIV…etc, the canon is not the point because the canons are the same between versions.
You know, actually Byzantine Texts and Alexandrian Texts never goes along so well. So yes there is a difference, actually major difference between bibles.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
Jag, We should not switch topics to textual concerns in a discussion about the Canon. Are you trying to change your answer, or do you stand by your first claim that the Spirit told you that the shorter canon was the one to use. No need to switch topics. In the 4th century and though the issue had been a hot topic for centuries, whenever it came up the list grew longer, but once on an agreed to list Rome never took a book off. The longer canon was established as a list officially by Pope Damasus in 382 in directing a new translation, the Latin version, we call the Vulgate. That same canon is used by the Church today. The Alexandrian and Byzantine textual differences between VERSIONS which has nothing to do with canons and primarily concern the NT as far as textual concerns go, and in any case I would not consider those differences MAJOR even though there are significant differences in text. It is no different than comparing KJV with RSV or NIV…etc, the canon is not the point because the canons are the same between versions.
(thesuperjag;38887)
The extra biblical books are not part of the Word of God, but some say that they can use it as a second witnesses if they are in agreement with the Word.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
And Jag claims to know this because the Spirit personally revealed it, so unless we also get a similar personal revelation, we will have to accept Jag's word on this if we are going to use a shorter canon.
The extra biblical books are not part of the Word of God, but some say that they can use it as a second witnesses if they are in agreement with the Word.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.
And Jag claims to know this because the Spirit personally revealed it, so unless we also get a similar personal revelation, we will have to accept Jag's word on this if we are going to use a shorter canon.
Similar threads
