Essential Christian confessions. "The Augsburg Confessions".

[oyster67]

They also forget the harsh words of Paul in the scriptures about how they should further mutilate themselves.

Are you referring to circumcision? Please elaborate on this. I have heard that He circumcised Timothy. Is that so?

People of today look back at Luther through the lens of how Nazi Germany misused his words.
They for get there is a lot more to the story than a single pamphlet.

I have heard that Luther stated the following about the Book of Revelation;

"It is neither apostolic nor prophetic.
There are many nobler books than this.
My spirit cannot acquiesce with this book."

Did he really say that?

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

Article I. Of God.
1 Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2 that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3 yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term “person” 4 they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

5 They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. 6 They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that “Word” signifies a spoken word, and “Spirit” signifies motion created in things.

Yes, the Council of Nicea was a beautiful, holy and Spirit-Led Council. It was a Council of the Early Catholic Church. It was attended by 320 Bishops. 318 Catholic Bishops condemned Arianism which denied the Divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior. 2 bishops refused to sign and were excommunicated. It took place in 325 A.D.

A similar Council in 381 A.D. defined the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, another Dogmatic Truth accepted by most denominations. Finally, a Fourth Century Council of Rome under Pope Damasus defined the 27 Book Canon of the NT.

It is clear from Church History that such Ecumenical/Universal Councils are specially guided by the Holy Spirit. See Acts 15.

God Bless.

 

[Dirtman]

Are you referring to circumcision? Please elaborate on this. I have heard that He circumcised Timothy. Is that so?



I have heard that Luther stated the following about the Book of Revelation;

"It is neither apostolic nor prophetic.
There are many nobler books than this.
My spirit cannot acquiesce with this book."

Did he really say that?

Read Galatians chapter 5 pay particular attention to verse 12. But also its not hard to see how critical not only Paul but even Jesus was of the Jews in their time.

Luther did right that about Revelation while he was trying to translate it to German. He also wrote other things as well. He also wrote I do not hold anyones conscience to I feel.
So imagine not being proficient in Greek and trying to translate the book of Revelation to German. What he wrote in frustration really shouldnt be held against him. Dont we all say stuff in frustration?
After all he did translate it and it was published in the German translation. Where he did not translate the aprocrypha.

 

[Evmur]

The golden calf of Christianity. Nothing about divine essence or persons in the Bible.

In the Bible, it is very simple, no need to be a professor or philosophy.

Jesus is the son of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.

Easy.

... is the only begotten son of God ... God begot God

 

[Komentaja]

... is the only begotten son of God ... God begot God

That would be two.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Your terminology "slave" is counterproductive in your argument and serves to characterize all those who read and enjoy the work of spirit filled men incorrectly. It also does injustice to the character of the work of those who sought diligently to contend for the faith. Perhaps that actually was your aim or just a byproduct of lumping so many into one basket.

Okay, if you say so. I seem to recall Jesus having a thing or two to say about the theology of "spirit-filled men" of his day.

"For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise," 1 Corinthians 1:26-27

 

[Cameron143]

Okay, if you say so. I seem to recall Jesus having a thing or two to say about the theology of "spirit-filled men" of his day.

"For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise," 1 Corinthians 1:26-27

You miss the point. If your point is to cause dissension or alienate people you are hugely effective. If you are attempting to influence people for the Lord's sake you fail epically.
Try adding love to truth. And add more truth. Believe it or not, there is much more to the faith than you know.

 

[Aaron56]

Nicea was a political council

Yes, the Council of Nicea was a beautiful, holy and Spirit-Led Council. It was a Council of the Early Catholic Church. It was attended by 320 Bishops. 318 Catholic Bishops condemned Arianism which denied the Divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior. 2 bishops refused to sign and were excommunicated. It took place in 325 A.D.

A similar Council in 381 A.D. defined the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, another Dogmatic Truth accepted by most denominations. Finally, a Fourth Century Council of Rome under Pope Damasus defined the 27 Book Canon of the NT.

It is clear from Church History that such Ecumenical/Universal Councils are specially guided by the Holy Spirit. See Acts 15.

God Bless.

Where, in scripture, did a politician (Constantine) or a state (Rome) ever convene a “spirit-led” council?

These councils led to the “church” leaving her God-ordained calling to represent Christ in the earth, to a demonic calling of representing the decrees of an empire (Rome). From this, murders and wars became common practice and sanctioned by the church; opulent temples to Roman gods, and their accoutrements, were not destroyed but repurposed to be “Christian”, Roman practices like pederasty (privileged men taking young boys as sex slaves) became common among the “priests” and persist to this day.

We do agree that the council was led by a spirit, but not the Spirit of the Living God.

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

Short answer: Except the Bible says no one can confess Jesus Christ is Lord without the Holy Spirit, and Nicaea confessed precisely the Divinity of the Son of God, at a time when Arius denied it. Hence, it is Scripturally proved it was Spirit-Led.

Be back later. God Bless.

 

[awelight]

So you dont think the Holy Spirit lead the reformation? Or Philip Melanchthon to write these confessions to King Charles as he demanded and explanation.

I think the opposing point, that some are trying to make, is this: If one holds to a Confession of Faith exclusively, then that one could be trapped or ensnared in it.

While Confessions of Faith are useful, in defining a point or points of understanding, they should not be used as an end all to Biblical understanding. Let me give an example, as to the potential problem:

I attended a church for some weeks and then approached the preacher, to ask a few questions. He answered one of my questions by saying: "We hold to the 1689 - Baptist Confession of Faith." This was not what I wanted to hear. Not because I was objecting to what was in this Confession but because it represented an unwillingness to grow. An open admission, that they were willing to be hemmed in by the scope of that confession.

While one can learn many things from a "Confession", they should never be solely committed to it. As believers, we must always leave the door open for new understandings and clarifications as learned through study and Holy Spirit guidance. To hold to "any" Confessions of Faith, regardless of how well written or intended, could blind one to future growth. It could be associated with the "veil of Moses", in which the Jews blinded themselves.

 

[Dirtman]

I think the opposing point, that some are trying to make, is this: If one holds to a Confession of Faith exclusively, then that one could be trapped or ensnared in it.

While Confessions of Faith are useful, in defining a point or points of understanding, they should not be used as an end all to Biblical understanding. Let me give an example, as to the potential problem:

I attended a church for some weeks and then approached the preacher, to ask a few questions. He answered one of my questions by saying: "We hold to the 1689 - Baptist Confession of Faith." This was not what I wanted to hear. Not because I was objecting to what was in this Confession but because it represented an unwillingness to grow. An open admission, that they were willing to be hemmed in by the scope of that confession.

While one can learn many things from a "Confession", they should never be solely committed to it. As believers, we must always leave the door open for new understandings and clarifications as learned through study and Holy Spirit guidance. To hold to "any" Confessions of Faith, regardless of how well written or intended, could blind one to future growth. It could be associated with the "veil of Moses", in which the Jews blinded themselves.

While I understand what you are saying, I disagree. And if you can find an issue with the Augsburge Confessions that needs re-thought or changed I will gladly discuss it with you.
I think mostly that people searching for latest and greatest ideas have gotten them into more of a mess.

 

[Athanasius377]

Are you referring to circumcision? Please elaborate on this. I have heard that He circumcised Timothy. Is that so?



I have heard that Luther stated the following about the Book of Revelation;

"It is neither apostolic nor prophetic.
There are many nobler books than this.
My spirit cannot acquiesce with this book."

Did he really say that?

Yes he did. It appears as the preface to Revelation in 1522 edition of his NT translation but removed and replaced by a summary in his 1530 edition. Luther also understands that Revelation struggled for acceptance in the canon of the early church and was not sure himself. Yet, he included the book in 1522 and grouped it with 2 and 3 john, Hebrews, Jude, James as "books that were spoken against". Below is the preface.





Preface to the Revelation of St. John
1522

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words.61 Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1[:8], “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.


Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.; Vol. 35, pp. 398–399). Fortress Press.

 

[oyster67]

Yes he did. It appears as the preface to Revelation in 1522 edition of his NT translation but removed and replaced by a summary in his 1530 edition. Luther also understands that Revelation struggled for acceptance in the canon of the early church and was not sure himself. Yet, he included the book in 1522 and grouped it with 2 and 3 john, Hebrews, Jude, James as "books that were spoken against". Below is the preface.





Preface to the Revelation of St. John
1522

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words.61 Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1[:8], “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.


Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 35: Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.; Vol. 35, pp. 398–399). Fortress Press.

Thank you.
It is both depressing and confusing that Martin Luther could not sense the Spirit's blessing upon this book. The Bible would be so incomplete without it. I hope he came to see the light in his latter years, but I have heard than He never preached on it.

Thanks again.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

why do we need confessions [middle-man] when we are in a one on one relationship with the true High Priest and we confess to Him?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Article I. Of God.
1 Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2 that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3 yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term “person” 4 they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

this is quite interesting here: And the term “person” 4 they use as the Fathers have used it

we don't see Yeshua using the term persons.
we don't see the Disciples/Apostles + Paul using the term persons.
we don't see the term persons when referring to God anywhere in the Original Greek.

but.......based upon the Church Roman Catholic Elders.......they used [persons].

so, i am supposed to follow the Demonic RCC definitions concerning terminology that does not exist anywhere in the actual Word of God?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Nicea was a political council


Where, in scripture, did a politician (Constantine) or a state (Rome) ever convene a “spirit-led” council?

These councils led to the “church” leaving her God-ordained calling to represent Christ in the earth, to a demonic calling of representing the decrees of an empire (Rome). From this, murders and wars became common practice and sanctioned by the church; opulent temples to Roman gods, and their accoutrements, were not destroyed but repurposed to be “Christian”, Roman practices like pederasty (privileged men taking young boys as sex slaves) became common among the “priests” and persist to this day.

We do agree that the council was led by a spirit, but not the Spirit of the Living God.

Amen and Agreed 100%

how can anyone be thinking they are obeying God by following the Ritual Definitions of the ancient Demonic RCC?

we know what spirit that led them!

the Adversary!

 

[Athanasius377]

Nicea was a political council


Where, in scripture, did a politician (Constantine) or a state (Rome) ever convene a “spirit-led” council?

These councils led to the “church” leaving her God-ordained calling to represent Christ in the earth, to a demonic calling of representing the decrees of an empire (Rome). From this, murders and wars became common practice and sanctioned by the church; opulent temples to Roman gods, and their accoutrements, were not destroyed but repurposed to be “Christian”, Roman practices like pederasty (privileged men taking young boys as sex slaves) became common among the “priests” and persist to this day.

We do agree that the council was led by a spirit, but not the Spirit of the Living God.

The First council of Nicaea was both. We accept the creed of the council as being orthodox Christian trinitarian confession. And not because of the the authority of any council rather because the creed teaches what is in accord with Scripture and it is from scripture alone the creed receives any authority.

Apart from the creed, the rest of the council is a hot mess of church law and politics. It is also useful to realize the council did not receive acceptance for almost 80 years and in fact the Arians actually won out against the orthodox for the three generations. Even the see of Rome capitulated and signed an arianized creed (Pope Liberius).

God can draw a straight line with a crooked ruler and certainly did in the case of Nicaea. Though Nicaea did wed altar and throne a deveopment that shall we say had mixed results. Primarily negative overall in my opinion.

 

[Athanasius377]

Thank you.
It is both depressing and confusing that Martin Luther could not sense the Spirit's blessing upon this book. The Bible would be so incomplete without it. I hope he came to see the light in his latter years, but I have heard than He never preached on it.

Thanks again.

I believe that he did. Luther changed his mind on a great many subjects and evolved on others.

 

[Dirtman]

this is quite interesting here: And the term “person” 4 they use as the Fathers have used it

we don't see Yeshua using the term persons.
we don't see the Disciples/Apostles + Paul using the term persons.
we don't see the term persons when referring to God anywhere in the Original Greek.

but.......based upon the Church Roman Catholic Elders.......they used [persons].

so, i am supposed to follow the Demonic RCC definitions concerning terminology that does not exist anywhere in the actual Word of God?

The opposition to the RCC wrote it.

 

[Dirtman]

I believe that he did. Luther changed his mind on a great many subjects and evolved on others.

Luther grew and changed through out his life and wrote everything down. So its not hard finding old Luther disagreeing with young Luther.