Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[MPaul]

The emphasis on the splintering of the church is grossly exaggerated. The majority of Protestants are in a limited number of denominations, and the differences between the denominations are on secondary issues. However, there is great unity on core doctrine.

The problem with Catholic theology is that it is not truth. That is the issue -- what is truth? Truth is not determined by the Catholic perception of the unity of the church. Truth is determined by the bible.

So, we should believe in false theology to keep unity??? Rather let us be unified in the truth. Let us not be unified by what is false. The Reformation is a fantastic success because it rejected Holy Tradition, which is false and a delusion built on the ghost of the Roman Empire. Once free of Holy Tradition, Christians can be guided by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Albion]

The emphasis on the splintering of the church is grossly exaggerated. The majority of Protestants are in a limited number of denominations, and the differences between the denominations are on secondary issues. However, there is great unity on core doctrine.

True enough, but that reality doesn't fit with the debating points of those who are hostile to reformed Christianity.

So, we should believe in false theology to keep unity??? Rather let us be unified in the truth. Let us not be unified by what is false. The Reformation is a fantastic success because it rejected Holy Tradition, which is false and a delusion built on the ghost of the Roman Empire. Once free of Holy Tradition, Christians can be guided by the Holy Ghost.

If the Church of Rome had reformed itself, it would not have split.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Well, if you go back and look at my post, you will see I erased the Catholic part. It's not pretty noting just what Holy Tradition has accomplished, and it would only cause things to become very bitter and emotional. So.... do I want to go there??? Hmmm.... but that is a question I have now. Do I want to set out what is wrong with Catholic tradition on my own websites? I surely believe I can do it very well. But what will it accomplish? Should I do it? It seems like God is leading me there... but I hesitate. Actually, it is not good to hesitate on God's will.

I do not get emotional when someone talks about the sins of the RCC.

I am not sure whether you want to mention the RCC sins. Useless. You know them, I know them, I know you know them, you know that I know them and so on. Yes, we are sinners. Yes, big sins, slavery being maybe the worst but many others.

What I do not see is that Reformers had less sins than Roman Catholics. I could mention as many as you can mention in the RCC.

But the question is. was it Tradition that made those sins? And having Bible as the only ground where to stand the Church made the Denominations less sinful?

Sincerely, I do not see what good the abolition of Tradition did in the Churches.

If I understood well what you said...

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

your whole concept of who the church is! is flawed, those who abide in Christ have Him at the head of the church. to answer your question Catholicism and the protestant reformation are in complete error, but both these sects will still be in operation when Jesus returns,

but as we see from scripture a few will be found in each church, who will be found worthy to wear the white robe, notice only one church is faithful, and they are not the rich churches which makes certain that neither the Catholic Cathedrals or the protestant mega churches will be who this faithful church is.

Your only hope if you are part of either of these churches is that you do not adhere to the false doctrines and teachings we see Jesus rebuking those in leadership of teaching, sexual immorality seems to be paramount of all the errant churches

just my short time here on this forum, seeing what Christians have to say about sex outside of marriage I'm pretty convinced we all ready are in the great falling away.........it won't be long now!

take Jesus's advice people and repent!

Your whole speech is disconect.
RCC and Protestants accept Jesus Chirst.
Who are the false prophets.
Are you making prophecy about the end of the World?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

The emphasis on the splintering of the church is grossly exaggerated. The majority of Protestants are in a limited number of denominations, and the differences between the denominations are on secondary issues. However, there is great unity on core doctrine.

The problem with Catholic theology is that it is not truth. That is the issue -- what is truth? Truth is not determined by the Catholic perception of the unity of the church. Truth is determined by the bible.

So, we should believe in false theology to keep unity??? Rather let us be unified in the truth. Let us not be unified by what is false. The Reformation is a fantastic success because it rejected Holy Tradition, which is false and a delusion built on the ghost of the Roman Empire. Once free of Holy Tradition, Christians can be guided by the Holy Ghost.

I have put this question a few times and no Protestant could reply to it. If Truth is to be determined by the Bible let us remember that it was Tradition who wrote the Bible, not Jesus Christ. Anyone to refute this?

So, if it was Tradition that wrote the Gospels and not Jesus Christ, why are the Protestant so much against tradition?

When I first came to this Forum I asked "why 200 denominations?" and then I discovered there are 30 thousand and growing at a rate of 200 a month. That is bad.

 

[Albion]

I have put this question a few times and no Protestant could reply to it. If Truth is to be determined by the Bible let us remember that it was Tradition who wrote the Bible, not Jesus Christ. Anyone to refute this?

Sure. Your statement about the Bible is a historical falsehood and the writing of the Bible is not a matter of Sacred Tradition at work in any case. So two zeros in one sentence.

Got any more strawmen?

 

[cimbk]

Your whole speech is disconect.
RCC and Protestants accept Jesus Chirst.
Who are the false prophets.
Are you making prophecy about the end of the World?

No seeing your Catholic you don't believe Revelations is a book about the end of times but as having already been fulfilled.........not sure how thats possible since Jesus hasn't returned yet....but what do I know

What I know is no follower of Jesus would kill another man for what he believed in the name of Christianity ("you will know them by their fruits") RING A BELL ANYONE!......both groups have history with murdering eachother, both can only be equated as in error (YOU CAN'T KILL PEOPLE AND BELIEVE YOU ARE ABIDING IN CHRIST)

You Both are very much the same in so many ways, both nolonger follow biblical guidelines for God appointed positions in the church (you make your own) nor do you follow the outline for church service, you make up your own, not to mention the complete misappropriation of monies collected, instead you've built these huge empires that exult men instead of God.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Nope! The Church required that Luther come back into obedience, which Luther refused. Luther was the one that drove Luther out.

Let's see ...

1. Luther posts the 95 theses in order to foster discussion.
2. Church says they won't discuss unless Luther repents.
3. Luther says there is no repentance necessary, it's just a discussion.
4. Church says repent or don't come back.

Hmmm ... seems obvious enough to me.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Sure. Your statement about the Bible is a historical falsehood and the writing of the Bible is not a matter of Sacred Tradition at work in any case. So two zeros in one sentence.

Got any more strawmen?

Your statement about the Bible is a historical falsehood

Why?Who wrote the Gospels? Jesus Christ? You state, you do not prove.

The writing of the Bible is not a matter of Sacred Tradition at work in any case

No proof. Who wrote the Gospels? Jesus Christ? the Apostles? Luke and Mark?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

No seeing your Catholic you don't believe Revelations is a book about the end of times but as having already been fulfilled.........not sure how thats possible since Jesus hasn't returned yet....but what do I know

What I know is no follower of Jesus would kill another man for what he believed in the name of Christianity ("you will know them by their fruits") RING A BELL ANYONE!......both groups have history with murdering eachother, both can only be equated as in error (YOU CAN'T KILL PEOPLE AND BELIEVE YOU ARE ABIDING IN CHRIST)

You Both are very much the same in so many ways, both nolonger follow biblical guidelines for God appointed positions in the church (you make your own) nor do you follow the outline for church service, you make up your own, not to mention the complete misappropriation of monies collected, instead you've built these huge empires that exult men instead of God.

It is you who know the will of God?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Let's see ...

1. Luther posts the 95 theses in order to foster discussion.
2. Church says they won't discuss unless Luther repents.
3. Luther says there is no repentance necessary, it's just a discussion.
4. Church says repent or don't come back.

Hmmm ... seems obvious enough to me.

To a simple mind, and drawn as simply as this, yes, you're right. It seems obvious. But you forget that Luther had vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Do you really know what obedience is???

What happened is that Luther didn't know the entire story. The Church was already reforming when Luther asked them to reform. They, the Church, told him they were working on it.

To think that Luther split with the Catholic Church just over indulgences is way too simplistic. Luther also had problems with other Catholic doctrines which were Bible-based. Just one would be the sacrament of confirmation.

From the very beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther rejected certain Church teachings. These did not fit his personal theology that he believed he could sufficiently prove from Scripture (or, at least from that part of Scripture that he did not throw out). If the Church taught something contrary to Luther’s ideas then, he claimed, it must have been instituted by the Church—not by Christ as evidenced in Scripture.
Never mind that John the Evangelist wrote of the limitations of Scripture, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (Jn 21:25). Never mind that the apostles taught and practiced it, and the Church Fathers attested to it. If Luther did not like it and it wasn’t explicitly taught in Scripture, it was rejected.
It is true that the words sacrament of confirmation do not appear explicitly anywhere in Scripture—even in the parts of Scripture Luther rejected. But, of course, neither do the words Trinity or Bible. Even so, these underlying concepts are implicit in Scripture. The same is true of the sacrament of confirmation.
In fact, confirmation—a special anointing with the Holy Spirit—has its roots in Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah prophesied that the promised Messiah would be specially anointed with the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word Messiah literally means "anointed one": "There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord" (Is 11:1-2).

 

[WinBySurrender]

To a simple mind, and drawn as simply as this, yes, you're right. It seems obvious. But you forget that Luther had vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Do you really know what obedience is???

I'm going to assume you posted that "stuff" there in a heat of passionate reply and didn't mean it as a personal insult. Work for you?

What happened is that Luther didn't know the entire story. The Church was already reforming when Luther asked them to reform. They, the Church, told him they were working on it.

So you have said many times, but I see nothing of proof to that effect, only your repetition of the statement. If the church was "reforming itself" it wouldn't have had a problem with Luther, and in fact many facets of the church on some continents continue to have a problem with "grace alone" salvation. Thankfully that isn't true in most developed nations where the church is prominent.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

I'm going to assume you posted that "stuff" there in a heat of passionate reply and didn't mean it as a personal insult. Work for you?So you have said many times, but I see nothing of proof to that effect, only your repetition of the statement. If the church was "reforming itself" it wouldn't have had a problem with Luther, and in fact many facets of the church on some continents continue to have a problem with "grace alone" salvation. Thankfully that isn't true in most developed nations where the church is prominent.

If the church was "reforming itself" it wouldn't have had a problem with Luther,

Oh! Boy! were not for Luther, we would not have had the Council of Trent, the Vatican I and II and all the Synods of Bishops, the Encyclica of the Popes and all the Orders founded since then (Jesuits and the like) !!! It seemed that we needed Luther for Conversion !!! It seems Luther is the center of the History !!! We should have a before-Luther and after-Luther !!!

 

[athenken]

Oh! Boy! were not for Luther, we would not have had the Council of Trent, the Vatican I and II and all the Synods of Bishops, the Encyclica of the Popes and all the Orders founded since then (Jesuits and the like) !!! It seemed that we needed Luther for Conversion !!! It seems Luther is the center of the History !!! We should have a before-Luther and after-Luther !!!

The sarcasm-fu is strong with this one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm going to assume you posted that "stuff" there in a heat of passionate reply and didn't mean it as a personal insult. Work for you?So you have said many times, but I see nothing of proof to that effect, only your repetition of the statement. If the church was "reforming itself" it wouldn't have had a problem with Luther, and in fact many facets of the church on some continents continue to have a problem with "grace alone" salvation. Thankfully that isn't true in most developed nations where the church is prominent.

I didn't say anything insulting, nor did I mean any insult. You described the Protestant Revolt as a very simple thing, did you not? But it was really very complicated.

Regarding the Church reforming itself, she has done so every day since Pentecost, the first Pentecost. I'm not going to enumerate everything, because it was happening in different ways in different countries. But the idea that the "Counter-Reformation" was a reaction to Martin Luther is absolutely erroneous. Luther was helping to reform the Church from the early 1500's. When he became impatient and decided that the Church wasn't acting fast enough, is when he went out on his own.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Counter-Reformation

 

[MPaul]

I do not get emotional when someone talks about the sins of the RCC.

I am not sure whether you want to mention the RCC sins. Useless. You know them, I know them, I know you know them, you know that I know them and so on. Yes, we are sinners. Yes, big sins, slavery being maybe the worst but many others.

What I do not see is that Reformers had less sins than Roman Catholics. I could mention as many as you can mention in the RCC.

But the question is. was it Tradition that made those sins? And having Bible as the only ground where to stand the Church made the Denominations less sinful?

Sincerely, I do not see what good the abolition of Tradition did in the Churches.

If I understood well what you said...

Well, one thing I really like about Protestantism is the separation of powers in church government. Executive office (or Pastor), legislative body (or board of elders), congregation (or Priesthood of all believers). Protestants say the Adamic nature can overtake a Christian at any time, especially those in government, but it is the job of the other branches to rein in the abuses.

The problem with Holy Tradition (besides the theory that it lends itself to abuse by those in authority), is that it is not truth. Thus, the Reformation is a great success as it moves toward the truth. Holy Tradition is not based on the bible. Its initial form is identical to what was considered divine about the Roman Empire -- the RCC just incorporated that into Christianity. Straying from truth always leads to abuse.

At the start of the Reformation, some Protestants practiced some of the same abuse the Catholics did, but others upheld the theory of denominationalism, which won out, and which eliminated a huge amount of abuse.

One very good thing about the Reformation -- in World War II, Hitler fully intended to take over the Vatican and kill the Pope. If the Nazis had won the war, the Vatican would be an SS headquarters today. However, the significant difference in the war was the armies and money from English speaking thoroughly Protestant (at that time) societies. We made the Russian front possible with finances, and we set up a second front on the West. It was the Protestants that saved the RCC. Hmm... but should we consider that a success???

 

[whitetiger1]

The problem is if, and I am not rejoicing on that, if the Protestant Churches go the way of the MS-DOS, the Win-95 and 98, the diskettes or CD's.

We are shooting in the dark, but, as for me, sadly, I do not see any future in the Churches outside the Pope. And it saddens me for my biggest joy would be that all the Churches would be again, one flock under one Shepherd. Like before the Reformation.

We'll have to disagree there but all is good I myself do not see a bright future for the Catholic Church, can not pin point the reason it is just a notion call it a feeling for lack of a better word.

 

[whitetiger1]

Truth is determined by the bible.

Who determined that? You talked about not have anyone person determine truth (Like the Catholic Church) yet you have here yourself. You say Truth is determined by the Bible but no agrees on anyone else idea of what any particular passage says. There are a hundred ideas so who's truth from their understanding should we follow?

 

[VolRaider]

The problem is if, and I am not rejoycing on that, if the Protestant Churches go the way of the MS-DOS, the Win-95 and 98, the diskettes or CDs.

We are shooting in the dark, but, as for me, sadly, I do not see any future in the Churches outside the Pope. And it saddens me for my biggest joy would be that all the Churches would be again, one flock under one Shepherd. Like before the Reformation.

The Eastern Orthodox would beg to differ with you. And the Oriental Orthodox would beg to differ with both.

 

[MPaul]

Who determined that? You talked about not have anyone person determine truth (Like the Catholic Church) yet you have here yourself. You say Truth is determined by the Bible but no agrees on anyone else idea of what any particular passage says. There are a hundred ideas so who's truth from their understanding should we follow?

It has to do with the principles used to determine what the bible is. When Moses prepared the Jews for a meeting with God, they said being in his presence was too terrifying and they asked for a spokesman, or in this case Moses. God agreed to use prophets, and he gave the people criteria for recognizing an accredited prophets. Their writings were stored in the temple. People who said they spoke for God, but who could not pass the test God gave, were to be stoned to death. God said the people only had to listen to an accredited prophet.

I've already answered the part on how the truth of the bible is determined. According to the theory of denominationalism, some of the bible is entirely clear, just using the principles of language, logic, historical circumstance, etc. Core doctrine, on which all Protestants agree, is based on what is clear. However, peripheral matters are not as clear and are subject to debate until agreement is reached.

However, I reject absolutely that we can arbitrarily pick someone to set out what is truth because otherwise there could be a lack of institutional unity. It's ridiculous. The truth is authority, not people, which is best represented by the bible, and when the words are not entirely clear on peripheral matters, it is best to go through a process of debate to discern who is correct.

PS -- by the way, Protestants do not advocate stoning those Catholics to death who act as God's spokesman in a way that does not meet the test of an accredited prophet in upholding Holy Tradition. Stoning people to death is not part of the New Covenant under Christ. However, when those people meet Christ in judgment, it does seem there is going to be a problem for them.