Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[cimbk]

It is you who know the will of God?

the question is why don't you? do you not own a bible? none of these things are hidden or abscure, there laid out in simple to read text, you can either follow what it says or do what you have been doing since error crept in (we were also told this would happen too)

 

[whitetiger1]

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.

By saying the Bible only has truth that we are to follow than you are setting yourself up as God's spokesman, something that never happened in Scripture and historical Christianity. We can see there were leaders and no one until the 1500's went solely by something that came out of Tradition

 

[MPaul]

By saying the Bible only has truth that we are to follow than you are setting yourself up as God's spokesman, something that never happened in Scripture and historical Christianity. We can see there were leaders and no one until the 1500's went solely by something that came out of Tradition

No, not at all. I am setting up what the bible says as the Word of God. The bible says it and I believe it.

Actually, people tried setting up the bishop of Rome as the primary authority quite early. The palaces (Cathedrals), fancy clothes, exquisite art, making the Pope god-like (vicar of Christ), following a Roman ritual calendar, making Latin the language of the church, following the Roman Empire's political structure etc., etc. came later, but it was all based on what was considered divine about the Roman Empire.

PS -- by the way, upholding the doctrines on Mary began when the sister of Theodosius, Plucheria - I think it is spelled that way - wanted to share rule with him over the empire, but making her co-empress was rejected, as she was a woman. So the doctrines on Mary were invented, in order to demonstrate that it was consistent with divine law for a woman to hold such power. Her picture was placed everywhere and the people were told to pray to her for healing. Bishops who objected were exiled. There is no real mention of these doctrines before Theodosius.

 

[Albion]

By saying the Bible only has truth that we are to follow than you are setting yourself up as God's spokesman

How do you figure? I think the dictionary has the correct definitions for words; does that make me Webster's 'spokesman?'

something that never happened in Scripture and historical Christianity. We can see there were leaders and no one until the 1500's went solely by something that came out of Tradition

Not true. The Early Church Fathers cited Scripture and never Tradition.

 

[WinBySurrender]

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 !!!

Run out of valium today, did you?

 

[Albion]

We should have a before-Luther and after-Luther !!!

Today it's February 6, 495 A.L.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

The sarcasm-fu is strong with this one.

Sorry for the sarcasm.
But when we hear that the Church needed conversion and that it was Luther who did the Re-Form of the Church, we wonder: how come? there was no reformation and conversion before and after?
Sorry if you felt sarcasm, but it was unintended.
What I was trying to say is that if Luther did not exist, the continuous conversion and transformation of the RCC would go on.
Again, sorry for any offense that my words did but, sincerely, it was to mark a point not to hurt anybody's feelings.
Sorry, again.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

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???

Just a simple question: if Protestants do not have Tradition, why are there different "dogmas" in different Protestant churches? What is the set of dogmas in each Church but Tradition in Protestantism, better, Tradition in Each Denomination. If Each Denomination did not have His own Tradition (please do not distinguish it from traditions, for I can do the same with the Catholic church), they would not distinguish from each other!

As for the direction of the Churches, your reasoning is human: "I feel", "I think", "I imagine the SS in Rome", "I", "I", "I". The RCC direction is divine: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not stand against it". You like to quote the Bible, where is in the Bible your structure from day zero to Luther?

 

[Albion]

Just a simple question: if Protestants do not have Tradition, why are there different "dogmas" in different Protestant churches?

Different understandings of Scripture.

The RCC direction is divine: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not stand against it".

Where in that verse do you find the Roman Catholic Church or even the city of Rome mentioned?

You like to quote the Bible, where is in the Bible your structure from day zero to Luther?

...So you want us to rely upon Tradition to prove Scripture??? You should know by now that we are guided by the word of God instead?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Different understandings of Scripture.



Where in that verse do you find the Roman Catholic Church or even the city of Rome mentioned?


...So you want us to rely upon Tradition to prove Scripture??? You should know by now that we are guided by the word of God instead?

Different understandings of Scripture.

Different Traditions on Scripture. If you are a Lutheran and you defend something that Lutherans consider essential or fundamental to Lutheran Tradition, he is not considered Lutheran.

Where in that verse do you find the Roman Catholic Church or even the city of Rome mentioned?

Saint Ambrose of Milan: "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, ibi Deus". You do not need Rome. I hate the wording "Roman Catholic Church" but the Protestant took it away and to distinguish we must have that name but we can do well without.
In that verse, it is mentioned the Church which is based on Peter, the first Leader of the Church, who had 2000 years of Leaders who succeeded to Him. You understand that I am avoiding the word Pope for you would ask the tired question: "Where is the word Pope in the Bible?", to which I could reply: "Where is the word Luther, or the word Reformation in the Bible?"

So you want us to rely upon Tradition to prove Scripture???

On the contrary, I wanted you to use the Bible to prove Reformation. Where is the word there? Where is the word Protestantism, Lutheranism, Calvinism?

You should know by now that we are guided by the word of God instead?

Then, if the verses are ONE, why are there 30 thousand interpretations? Either are all wrong or they are all of them right and we must know: "how come?"

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Today it's February 6, 495 A.L.

If you can drive this calendar through the society, Luther is a hero!

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Run out of valium today, did you?

Run out of valium today, did you?

Dont use.
Run out of arguments today, did you?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

the question is why don't you? do you not own a bible? none of these things are hidden or abscure, there laid out in simple to read text, you can either follow what it says or do what you have been doing since error crept in (we were also told this would happen too)

I follow the Church which has 1 billion people, and its leader, the Pope. These you call wrong people....

 

[Albion]

Different Traditions on Scripture.

They're not Traditions in any sense, no matter how often you say it.

In that verse, it is mentioned the Church which is based on Peter, the first Leader of the Church, who had 2000 years of Leaders who succeeded to Him.

As I said, no mention of Rome or Roman Catholic Church. Your imagination is not serving you well. And BTW, where do you think the church was from about 1484 B.L. until Peter got to Rome almost a decade later. Do you think that there wasn't any church of Christ for that time?

 

[Albion]

I follow the Church which has 1 billion people, and its leader, the Pope. These you call wrong people....

That's right. And you call the other 1 billion Christians wrong. zzzzzz

 

[MPaul]

Just a simple question: if Protestants do not have Tradition, why are there different "dogmas" in different Protestant churches? What is the set of dogmas in each Church but Tradition in Protestantism, better, Tradition in Each Denomination. If Each Denomination did not have His own Tradition (please do not distinguish it from traditions, for I can do the same with the Catholic church), they would not distinguish from each other!

You asked the question before and I answered it. Protestants agree on core doctrine which is clear in the bible. Matters on peripheral doctrine are subject to interpretation and debate. We have spiritual unity on core doctrine and divisions on peripheral matters. These divisions are not based in any sense on tradition but differing interpretations on what the bible means. The divisions should not be significant, but they merely represent different practices for living the Christian life.

This always happens to me -- I explain something to Catholics on the Protestant position, and then, they go on as if it never was explained. Does this not in itself indicate that their belief system is based on delusion?

 

[MPaul]

I follow the Church which has 1 billion people, and its leader, the Pope. These you call wrong people....

Hey, being as you have 1 billion people to fellowship with, why don't you people just focus on worshiping and serving God? Why does your focus have to be on what is wrong with Protestants? Hmmm.... is it that Protestantism has made too much sense to the world?

But remember my prior post, armies and finances from Protestant countries saved the Vatican in World War II. So think twice about getting rid of us.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

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

OK, no problem. May everyone disagree. The Truth is one. And from what we see in the world, the greatest beam of light seem to be the RCC. I think that the EOC and the OO had their time. I do not see much progress on them in terms of spreading around the world.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

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.

First, it was the Bible, now there are intermediates, like the prophets, then there is a core you cannot discuss. This core, I would call it Tradition but you are against Tradition.
It would like to know what is the "core", which teachings are in them.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

They're not Traditions in any sense, no matter how often you say it.



As I said, no mention of Rome or Roman Catholic Church. Your imagination is not serving you well. And BTW, where do you think the church was from about 1484 B.L. until Peter got to Rome almost a decade later. Do you think that there wasn't any church of Christ for that time?

They're not Traditions in any sense, no matter how often you say it.

Your opinion. When there is a set of teachings that some group adhere to for some amount of time, everybody in the World calls Tradition. Except you...

And BTW, where do you think the church was from about 1484 B.L. until Peter got to Rome almost a decade later.

I told in the quote: Where was Peter, there was the Church.