Why we cannot accept the Reformation!

[Halbhh]

I don't think the Gospels are unreliable. my point was that in dismissing men because they are flawed (like Augustine) and saying we should love Jesus alone and like Jesus alone is to know nothing about him since the testimony about Jesus is received from men, who were flawed. It's an absurd position but imagine if Yeshuaslavejeff was in the first century and heard the Gospel from Peter. He could not trust Peter since Peter made a lot of mistakes and had alot of flaws, he must therefore ignore Peter because Peter is merely a man. See the problem in such a position?

Yes. We don't ignore Peter, but learn from him. He isn't the head of the Church, which is Christ of course, but He is a servant under Christ. He shows us an example, even when at times he falls in sin/errors, in that he then turns from those sins/errors, and humbly returns to Christ. This is exactly how we all should do.

In all, Peter is a marvelous example to us, showing that even those with much faith -- remembering that he was a vehicle even to raise the dead, and other miracles -- can stumble into error, indeed we should even expect that as normal! but that the willingness to be humble to turn from the error, this is so key, this Christ-following humbleness.

 

[tz620q]

nm

 

[tz620q]

Excuse me, it was in the Fundamentalist area.

Why is there so much hate in fundamentalism toward Catholics and Orthodox

Beginning with post#82, I said there:



And if you will take note, my position has not changed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

All of this seems to be because we allow rather shoddy usage of common words. We allow the Protestant movement to be called such based on their protesting certain abuses in the Catholic Church of that time (yeah, I know the term itself comes from the Diet of Speyer; but it has been adopted by the churches within that movement.) Yet, this is an imprecise usage of the word, since protest can come from within as well as from outside. So we have a group that split from the church that is protesting; but what do we call those who protest from within. That is what happened with the Donatists, who were protesting the taking back of people who had renounced their Christianity under Diocletian. So if anything, the Donatists were doing the persecuting and Pope Miltiades put a stop to it. So it seems to me that building a bridge in history composed of planks hewed only from those who have protested some Catholic position would hardly get one to the Baptist SOF. For surely the largest group of protesters is the Orthodox and they are hardly Baptist.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I suppose you mean in the spiritual sense that Lutherans are carrying on the Church in it's invisible sense while obviously being a brand new physical organisation that did not exist prior to Luther. Because to me this claim makes little sense since we do not see Lutheranism before Luther firmly established himself as being against the Papacy and men and women began to follow his message. Certainty the bodies of Lutheranism and Catholicism are not united and Lutheranism can claim no historicity before the 16th century, so am I right that Lutherans would understand this as they are part of the Church invisible even if their appearance as the church visible is fairly New?

The bodies of Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not in communion presently; but I wouldn't say one or the other didn't exist prior to the 11th century. That is, very clearly both Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue to carry the Church catholic in their structures onward into the present--now Catholicism would say Orthodoxy broke from them, and you Orthodox would say Catholicism broke away from you; but it's not as though the bishop of Rome founded a new church in 1054, or that the patriarch of Constantinople founded a new church in 1054--the complicated history doesn't permit such simplistic ways of looking at it.

Luther didn't found a new church; what we know as "Lutheranism" wasn't meant to be anything new, it wasn't about having a church apart from what already existed.

I suspect that the concepts of "visible" and "invisible" church are somewhat confused here. What is meant by "visible Church" means what is presently visible, and that there are both wheat and tares in the Church and it isn't until the Judgment that Christ will separate the two; by "invisible" it is meant the wheat. It also includes the idea that even outside of the Church visible there may be and in fact are faithful Christians; but this isn't a radical idea or the invention of Luther, St. Augustine says something similar, and I have routinely heard Orthodox say "We know where the Church is, we don't know where the Church is not", and even Catholicism today shares a similar sentiment when it confesses "invincible ignorance". What Lutheranism doesn't say is that only the "invisible" Church is true and the "visible" not true. As a Lutheran I would agree with Vladimir Lossky that to make a radical division here is a kind of Nestorianism. Lutherans take very seriously the fact that the Church is marked by a visible unity expressed in the Means of Grace: Word and Sacrament. Without the visible, tangible, external realities given expressly by Christ to the Church there is no Church: without Baptism, the Eucharist, the preaching of the Word, ordained ministers, and the exercising of the Office of the Keys there is no Church as the Church is marked by these external, outward realities.

But this may be a marked difference between us: for Lutherans the chief mark of the Church is Word and Sacrament, rather than the historic episcopate; it's not that the latter is irrelevant or doesn't matter, only that the chief mark of the Church is that she is that through which is found Word and Sacrament; and this Christian and Apostolic word and mission is retained in the Church--all else the Church has and is serves to safeguard this holy deposit of faith given by Christ to be faithfully dispensed by His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

His demeanour towards the Church which reared him became increasingly ugly and vitriolic to such a degree as to firmly separate the two entities of Lutheranism and Catholicism (His movement being a restoration of the Gospel message and Catholicism being a bastion of Anti-Christ denying the true Gospel message according to Luther).

Corruption being as it was back then does not seem to me to be a good enough of an excuse to found one's own Church or movement because it sets up the principle (already common within Protestantism) that if we are unsatisfied with a body we can establish a newer and better one. I

Corruption wasn’t the issue for Luther. Rather, it was theological. He believed that the abuses were symptoms of a more serious problem: that the Church had lost track of the Gospel. That’s why he came to believe that it was the anti-Christ. It claimed to be for Christ but actually was putting up obstacles in front of those who would follow him.

It’s worth noting that Luther didn’t actually found a new church. Rather, he was a major theological leader in a national Church that decided it could no longer accept the leadership of Rome. The same was true of the Reformed churches. These were all State churches, with the same members and clergy as before. The original Reformers didn't create new churches.

I actually have a differing perspective from Luther here. He was operating within a late medieval concept of the Church. With 500 years of perspective, I see things differently. For Luther, there was one Church. The leadership in Rome had become the anti-Christ, bu the Church in Germany was still salvageable. The traditional Lutheran perspective is that in breaking communion with Luther, the Pope excommunicated himself from the Church.

If Lutherans and Reformed had managed to maintain communion between themselves, possibly this view could have prevailed. Unfortunately a few issues that I don’t think are that major were inflated to the point where this wasn’t possible. And more radical Reformers wen their own way. In retrospect, this doesn’t look like one true Church, from which the Pope removed himself. Rather, it looks like a fragmentation of the Church.

I view that as replay of Babel. In the Tower of Babel, people tried to reach heaven, making themselves gods. God fragmented their languages, as both a punishment and a protection against the same thing happening again. I think the Catholic Church had confused its own human organization with God, in a number of different ways. Fragmenting the Church is both a punishment and a way of preventing this from happening again. I don’t think Catholics will be able to be full members of the Church until they accept this judgement, and recognize that they’re now part of a different kind of Church. To a large extent the Catholic leadership has already done so de facto, although they're trapped by a claim that Catholic doctrine can never change, so it's a bit tricky to acknowledge officially. Some lay apologists tend to take more traditional views. Of course those are the voices that typically show up in threads like this.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The bodies of Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not in communion presently; but I wouldn't say one or the other didn't exist prior to the 11th century. That is, very clearly both Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue to carry the Church catholic in their structures onward into the present--now Catholicism would say Orthodoxy broke from them, and you Orthodox would say Catholicism broke away from you; but it's not as though the bishop of Rome founded a new church in 1054, or that the patriarch of Constantinople founded a new church in 1054--the complicated history doesn't permit such simplistic ways of looking at it.

Luther didn't found a new church; what we know as "Lutheranism" wasn't meant to be anything new, it wasn't about having a church apart from what already existed.

I suspect that the concepts of "visible" and "invisible" church are somewhat confused here. What is meant by "visible Church" means what is presently visible, and that there are both wheat and tares in the Church and it isn't until the Judgment that Christ will separate the two; by "invisible" it is meant the wheat. It also includes the idea that even outside of the Church visible there may be and in fact are faithful Christians; but this isn't a radical idea or the invention of Luther, St. Augustine says something similar, and I have routinely heard Orthodox say "We know where the Church is, we don't know where the Church is not", and even Catholicism today shares a similar sentiment when it confesses "invincible ignorance". What Lutheranism doesn't say is that only the "invisible" Church is true and the "visible" not true. As a Lutheran I would agree with Vladimir Lossky that to make a radical division here is a kind of Nestorianism. Lutherans take very seriously the fact that the Church is marked by a visible unity expressed in the Means of Grace: Word and Sacrament. Without the visible, tangible, external realities given expressly by Christ to the Church there is no Church: without Baptism, the Eucharist, the preaching of the Word, ordained ministers, and the exercising of the Office of the Keys there is no Church as the Church is marked by these external, outward realities.

But this may be a marked difference between us: for Lutherans the chief mark of the Church is Word and Sacrament, rather than the historic episcopate; it's not that the latter is irrelevant or doesn't matter, only that the chief mark of the Church is that she is that through which is found Word and Sacrament; and this Christian and Apostolic word and mission is retained in the Church--all else the Church has and is serves to safeguard this holy deposit of faith given by Christ to be faithfully dispensed by His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

I think discussing what is the primary factor for considering what a Church is will help us understand one another. Now I would not necessarily say it is the historic succession of the episcopacy that marks the church and it's existence, rather it is the communion of the Church in which word, sacrament and clergy/laity all play a part. What the succession of Bishops represents is that unbroken fleshly connection going back to the Apostles, not just with the Bishops but the entire communion of the faithful. We aren't just an intellectual club, we are a real body of people who have a historical connection stretching back to Christ himself who commissioned us as such to be such a family. Lutheranism on the other hand insists that Bishops and this historical connection are not necessary so theoretically if it is just word and Gospel that were necessary anyone anywhere can start a Church as long as they are within certain boundaries and Lutherans would be forced to accept it as a legitimate expression of the Church on earth. I suppose I understand why under this framework you say the Lutheran Church was not a New Church but under my framework it is a new and different entity than that which came before it.

If I were to summerize the problem I see with focusing on word and sacrament only as the true markers of the Church, is that it cannot encourage unity amongst the visible Church. Why, if Calvinists, Orthodox, Catholics, Presbyterians and Lutherans all have legitimate word and sacrament, do we need to unite and become one under Lutheranism? We do not since it isn't our communion with each other or to those before us which is necessary, only word or sacrament, and one's appointment as a leader to commissioning to do these things is not a matter of ecclesiastical authority but individual authority with the consent of all. I think a good test of this idea is to apply to the Apostles time. Would anyone be allowed to be considered a fully orthodox Christian if they set up a Church without Apostolic approval? The answer is no, so why is it allowed now? Unless the Church fell into complete Apostasy and restoration was needed (something Lutherans deny I believe) then I cannot help but see this as a weak justification for the existence of Lutherans today.

So I would say, while Luther did not intend to at first, to found a New Church, he ultimately did in the end. He started a New Body which denied the need for historical communion and insisted on returning to the Gospel and that was his justification for his attacks against the Roman papacy as Anti-Christ and false. Luther set up the distinction in the end between a Church which clearly has historical precedence and his own movement which cannot be traced to anyone but himself. If we are not allowed to describe it as such then how should we call it? The confessions of the Lutheran Church have Luther's approval, the theology has Luther's will behind it, it has his intent behind it. They are in every sense, New and since historical continuity does not ultimately matter in Lutheranism, why should it wrong to describe the Lutheran Church as new Church or entity?

 

[DeaconDean]

That was interesting. Who really 'left'? one can ask.... We had been looking some at Martin Luther's experience in a Saturday study group at a Lutheran Church recently, and at one point I got out my phone to look up the beginning of the Augsburg Confession, which was being presented in response to challenge from the holy roman emperor (whose empire had military threat on its border at that time) and noticed the interesting wording at the start. But notice the intent, and the hoped for attitude they sought --

1] Most Invincible Emperor, Caesar Augustus, Most Clement Lord: Inasmuch as Your Imperial Majesty has summoned a Diet of the Empire here at Augsburg to deliberate concerning measures against the Turk, that most atrocious, hereditary, and ancient enemy of the Christian name and religion, in what way, namely, effectually to withstand his furor and assaults by strong and lasting military provision; 2] and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other's presence; and considered and weighed 3] among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord, 4]that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church."

Imagine that -- to weigh and consider among ourselves with mutual charity, leniency, and kindness....

But according to one member here, there "great sin" was inspiring others to leave the church and starting another.

"A little revolution every now and again is a healthy thing."

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

All of this seems to be because we allow rather shoddy usage of common words. We allow the Protestant movement to be called such based on their protesting certain abuses in the Catholic Church of that time (yeah, I know the term itself comes from the Diet of Speyer; but it has been adopted by the churches within that movement.) Yet, this is an imprecise usage of the word, since protest can come from within as well as from outside. So we have a group that split from the church that is protesting; but what do we call those who protest from within. That is what happened with the Donatists, who were protesting the taking back of people who had renounced their Christianity under Diocletian. So if anything, the Donatists were doing the persecuting and Pope Miltiades put a stop to it. So it seems to me that building a bridge in history composed of planks hewed only from those who have protested some Catholic position would hardly get one to the Baptist SOF. For surely the largest group of protesters is the Orthodox and they are hardly Baptist.

Actually, the Donatists faced severe persecution under Emperor Diocletian.

"In the last decade of the 3rd century CE, Emperor Diocletian ordered persecutions of various groups he blamed for a wave of plagues and pestilences which had swept the western Empire and resulted in economic and social instability. The chief target-groups ended up being (initially) Manicheans, and then Christians.

Diocletian’s persecutions were not carried out evenly through the Empire. In some provinces, Roman rulers and forces didn’t have the power or resources to carry them out. In others, particularly the large eastern cities, there were so many Christians that the authorities could not carry them out, aside perhaps from a few “examples.”

Northern Africa, however, was home to the confluence of three factors: first, a strong Roman administrative and governing presence capable of carrying out Diocletian’s orders; second, a significant number of Manichaeans who were initially persecuted; and third, a significant nummber of Christians who became later targets. Such a combination of factors did not exist anywhere else in the Empire; hence, the controversy to come was unique to northern Africa.

During the persecutions, any Christian who renounced Christianity, made offerings to the Roman state gods and/or the Imperial divine cult, and who burned any sacred Christian texts they may have had, were spared. Those who refused — especially those caught with Christian texts that they refused to hand over or destroy — were usually killed. That texts were often used to determine who was Christian and who wasn’t, meant that the clergy — those Christians most likely to have such things — were particularly vulnerable to the persecution.

While some Christian clergy resisted and were martyred, many did not. They renounced Christianity, allowed their books to be burned, and were spared. This was, of course, also true of many lay Christians, although a smaller percentage of them were affected because most had no sacred texts to give them away."

Source

So it still goes back to the point that any group that disagrees with the "Catholic" church will indeed, up until 1546, fact severe persecution from said church.

Ever hear the phrase: "Kill them all, let God sort them out!"?

Do you know where that phrase came from?

And my point about the Baptist F&M, is/was that the clause that one could agree with all, some, or none of what it says, and they could still call themselves "Baptist".

What does nearly all the Catholic catechisms say about you, if you dare to disagree?

There is no way I could be Catholic, but, for the sake of argument, I was. I took 2 semesters of Greek in seminary, so I know how to translate Greek for myself. According to the Council of Trent, Canon IV, Concerning the Holy Scriptures, I could be excommunicated because being able to translate the Greek, I could find, and have, found things that disagree with Catholicism. So I would be ex-communicated.

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

In reality, what was it Martin Luther is most hated for?

"Luther was extraordinarily successful as a monk. He plunged into prayer, fasting, and ascetic practices—going without sleep, enduring bone-chilling cold without a blanket, and flagellating himself. As he later commented, "If anyone could have earned heaven by the life of a monk, it was I."

Though he sought by these means to love God fully, he found no consolation. He was increasingly terrified of the wrath of God: "When it is touched by this passing inundation of the eternal, the soul feels and drinks nothing but eternal punishment."

During his early years, whenever Luther read what would become the famous "Reformation text"—Romans 1:17—his eyes were drawn not to the word faith, but to the word righteous. Who, after all, could "live by faith" but those who were already righteous? The text was clear on the matter: "the righteous shall live by faith."

Luther remarked, "I hated that word, 'the righteousness of God,' by which I had been taught according to the custom and use of all teachers ... [that] God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner." The young Luther could not live by faith because he was not righteous—and he knew it.

Meanwhile, he was ordered to take his doctorate in the Bible and become a professor at Wittenberg University. During lectures on the Psalms (in 1513 and 1514) and a study of the Book of Romans, he began to see a way through his dilemma. "At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I ... began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith… Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open."

On the heels of this new understanding came others. To Luther the church was no longer the institution defined by apostolic succession; instead it was the community of those who had been given faith. Salvation came not by the sacraments as such but by faith. The idea that human beings had a spark of goodness (enough to seek out God) was not a foundation of theology but was taught only by "fools." Humility was no longer a virtue that earned grace but a necessary response to the gift of grace. Faith no longer consisted of assenting to the church's teachings but of trusting the promises of God and the merits of Christ.

It wasn't long before the revolution in Luther's heart and mind played itself out in all of Europe."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Reading through some articles tonight, I ran across this little bit of information:

"In 1048 a French bishop was elected as Pope Leo IX. He and the clerics who accompanied him to Rome were intent on reforming the papacy and the entire church."

Source

Seems that a "Reformation" attempt was made some 469 years before Martin Luther succeeded.

But, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others, are still some of the most hated men in the history of religion.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Here is another:

"The Donatists– “the First Protestant Reformation”

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[tz620q]

Actually, the Donatists faced severe persecution under Emperor Diocletian.

"In the last decade of the 3rd century CE, Emperor Diocletian ordered persecutions of various groups he blamed for a wave of plagues and pestilences which had swept the western Empire and resulted in economic and social instability. The chief target-groups ended up being (initially) Manicheans, and then Christians.

Diocletian’s persecutions were not carried out evenly through the Empire. In some provinces, Roman rulers and forces didn’t have the power or resources to carry them out. In others, particularly the large eastern cities, there were so many Christians that the authorities could not carry them out, aside perhaps from a few “examples.”

Northern Africa, however, was home to the confluence of three factors: first, a strong Roman administrative and governing presence capable of carrying out Diocletian’s orders; second, a significant number of Manichaeans who were initially persecuted; and third, a significant nummber of Christians who became later targets. Such a combination of factors did not exist anywhere else in the Empire; hence, the controversy to come was unique to northern Africa.

During the persecutions, any Christian who renounced Christianity, made offerings to the Roman state gods and/or the Imperial divine cult, and who burned any sacred Christian texts they may have had, were spared. Those who refused — especially those caught with Christian texts that they refused to hand over or destroy — were usually killed. That texts were often used to determine who was Christian and who wasn’t, meant that the clergy — those Christians most likely to have such things — were particularly vulnerable to the persecution.

While some Christian clergy resisted and were martyred, many did not. They renounced Christianity, allowed their books to be burned, and were spared. This was, of course, also true of many lay Christians, although a smaller percentage of them were affected because most had no sacred texts to give them away."

Source

So it still goes back to the point that any group that disagrees with the "Catholic" church will indeed, up until 1546, fact severe persecution from said church.

This position fails to take into account that Diocletian was a Pagan Emperor, who enforced pagan worship on Catholic Christians. To try to make these Christians Baptist, 1200 years before there was any notion of Baptist Distinctives other than the distinctive that they protest the Catholic Church is a blatant rewrite of history with only a casual glance at what really happened. By the way, if there were modern Donatists, they would certainly not appreciate being lumped with the Baptists as they believed in a very strict definition of sacraments, not a mere symbolic ritual. In fact if anything the Donatists would be the 180 degree opposite of the Baptist position on nearly everything. Even the loosest definition of the Baptist church requires that the church at least recognize themselves as Baptist and does not impose upon them that name if they chose not to use it.

 

[DeaconDean]

This position fails to take into account that Diocletian was a Pagan Emperor, who enforced pagan worship on Catholic Christians. To try to make these Christians Baptist, 1200 years before there was any notion of Baptist Distinctives other than the distinctive that they protest the Catholic Church is a blatant rewrite of history with only a casual glance at what really happened.

Whooooh! In the first place, go abck in this thread or any other thread on this subject and provide for me, any post where I said the Donatists were "Baptists".

Secondly, history also records that some of the bishops in question:

"During the persecutions, any Christian who renounced Christianity, made offerings to the Roman state gods and/or the Imperial divine cult, and who burned any sacred Christian texts they may have had, were spared...That texts were often used to determine who was Christian and who wasn’t, meant that the clergy — those Christians most likely to have such things — were particularly vulnerable to the persecution."

Source

In the third place, get your facts straight not about history but also about me!

By the way, if there were modern Donatists, they would certainly not appreciate being lumped with the Baptists as they believed in a very strict definition of sacraments, not a mere symbolic ritual. In fact if anything the Donatists would be the 180 degree opposite of the Baptist position on nearly everything. Even the loosest definition of the Baptist church requires that the church at least recognize themselves as Baptist and does not impose upon them that name if they chose not to use it.

In the fourth place, I never once said that there were any modern day Donatists. So again, get your facts straight.

Fifth, if there were, then the most likely group to be associated with the Donatists would be the Ana-Baptists.

So here again, before you falsely accuse me, get your facts straight!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[tz620q]

So it still goes back to the point that any group that disagrees with the "Catholic" church will indeed, up until 1546, fact severe persecution from said church.

Ever hear the phrase: "Kill them all, let God sort them out!"?

Do you know where that phrase came from?

And my point about the Baptist F&M, is/was that the clause that one could agree with all, some, or none of what it says, and they could still call themselves "Baptist".

What does nearly all the Catholic catechisms say about you, if you dare to disagree?

I was replying to this part of your previous post. After citing a history of the Diocletian persecution, you linked that persecution to the Catholic church, falsely. I see no logic in juxtaposing these two things together if you did not want the reader to make such a linkage.

As far as the "Kill them all, let God sort them out!", this makes another false linkage between the Cathar Inquisition in the 1200's and the Diocletian persecution in the 300's. Again, the two events are not comparable in any way and I fail to see what your point is in citing them together.

Thirdly, I must apologize to you for not taking into account what I know about you, which is that you are a learned and thoughtful Christian. I probably should have asked for an explanation instead of firing back at you.

Finally, the modern day Donatist scenario was a hypothetical based on the assumption that you were trying to use the Landmark Baptist approach to showing prototype Baptists in a lot of divergent groups in history. It has always been amusing to me that one of the Baptist distinctives that I can wholeheartedly support is the right of a congregation to identify themselves with a group, such as the Baptists or to pick a different name. The Landmark Baptist position denies the ancient groups they cite this fundamental right. I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent with the post I have quoted.

 

[DeaconDean]

I was replying to this part of your previous post. After citing a history of the Diocletian persecution, you linked that persecution to the Catholic church, falsely. I see no logic in juxtaposing these two things together if you did not want the reader to make such a linkage.

As far as the "Kill them all, let God sort them out!", this makes another false linkage between the Cathar Inquisition in the 1200's and the Diocletian persecution in the 300's. Again, the two events are not comparable in any way and I fail to see what your point is in citing them together.

Thirdly, I must apologize to you for not taking into account what I know about you, which is that you are a learned and thoughtful Christian. I probably should have asked for an explanation instead of firing back at you.

Finally, the modern day Donatist scenario was a hypothetical based on the assumption that you were trying to use the Landmark Baptist approach to showing prototype Baptists in a lot of divergent groups in history. It has always been amusing to me that one of the Baptist distinctives that I can wholeheartedly support is the right of a congregation to identify themselves with a group, such as the Baptists or to pick a different name. The Landmark Baptist position denies the ancient groups they cite this fundamental right. I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent with the post I have quoted.

I am not now, nor have I ever been associated with Landmark Baptists.

I always have been, and will continue to be Southern Baptist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

As far as the "Kill them all, let God sort them out!", this makes another false linkage between the Cathar Inquisition in the 1200's and the Diocletian persecution in the 300's. Again, the two events are not comparable in any way and I fail to see what your point is in citing them together.

From "Christian History":

"Though almost no one refers to the entire medieval period as the "dark ages" anymore, the years from the fifth through the fifteenth century were often gloomy. Western Christendom battled Islam to the south and east, barbarians to the north and west, and plagues, famines, and feudal warfare at home. Then there was the problem of heresy, sprouting both local varieties and exotic foreign species.

Of the former strain, thirteenth-century Catharism was viewed as perhaps the most poisonous. At least it elicited the fiercest response. First the Cathars weathered a particularly vicious crusade: 20,000 people were slaughtered in the city of Beziers alone after the monk in charge of the assault, when asked how to distinguish heretics from Catholics, replied, "Kill them all, God will know his own." Surviving Cathars then became the original targets of the Inquisition.[/quote]

Source

Heretics and/or non-heretics, slaughtered on the orders of a Monk.

And here again, show me where I made a "link" between the Donatists and the Cathars.

Only that anybody who dared disagree with the "Catholic" church, faced severe persecution, and in this case, slaughter.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[tz620q]

From "Christian History":

"Though almost no one refers to the entire medieval period as the "dark ages" anymore, the years from the fifth through the fifteenth century were often gloomy. Western Christendom battled Islam to the south and east, barbarians to the north and west, and plagues, famines, and feudal warfare at home. Then there was the problem of heresy, sprouting both local varieties and exotic foreign species.

Of the former strain, thirteenth-century Catharism was viewed as perhaps the most poisonous. At least it elicited the fiercest response. First the Cathars weathered a particularly vicious crusade: 20,000 people were slaughtered in the city of Beziers alone after the monk in charge of the assault, when asked how to distinguish heretics from Catholics, replied, "Kill them all, God will know his own." Surviving Cathars then became the original targets of the Inquisition.

Source

Heretics and/or non-heretics, slaughtered on the orders of a Monk.

And here again, show me where I made a "link" between the Donatists and the Cathars.

Only that anybody who dared disagree with the "Catholic" church, faced severe persecution, and in this case, slaughter.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Leaving off the debatable point of whether Arnaud Almaric actually said these words, since no first hand accounts attribute such a decisive command to him, we would still be left with the rest of the article you quote above, which goes on to show the truly horrendous beliefs of the Cathars. As heretical as their beliefs were, the Pope tried many different peaceful means to persuade them to give these heresies up. Was the massacre at Beziers a dark spot in Christian history? Certainly, but lets not whitewash the Cathars and try to make them into the poor oppressed proto-Protestants. As far as the non-Cathar residents of Bezier, they were given the opportunity to leave and chose to fight alongside the Cathars, what other outcome did they expect.

 

[TheNorwegian]

As such the Church of Sweden, Church of Denmark, Church of Norway, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland retain the historic episcopate.

This is not entirely correct. Apostolic succession was broken in Denmark and Norway during the Reformation. This was a major topic in the discussion that led to the Porvoo Communion between Lutherans from the Nordic countries and Anglicans from the UK

 

[DeaconDean]

which goes on to show the truly horrendous beliefs of the Cathars.

Whatever their beliefs were, right or wrong, on what right does the Catholic church reserve the right to massacre thousands and thousands of people?

As heretical as their beliefs were, the Pope tried many different peaceful means to persuade them to give these heresies up. Was the massacre at Beziers a dark spot in Christian history? Certainly, but lets not whitewash the Cathars and try to make them into the poor oppressed proto-Protestants.

What did Jesus teach?


"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." -Mt. 18:21-22 (KJV)

And as a last resort, Jesus said:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." -Mk. 6:11 (KJV)

Did they do that? No, instead they SLAUGHTERED thousands.

As far as the non-Cathar residents of Bezier, they were given the opportunity to leave and chose to fight alongside the Cathars, what other outcome did they expect.

Does not matter, and it still proves my point.

Disagree with the "Catholic" church, persecution, torture, and death followed.

There is historical fact that when the Donatists rebelled, as its been said, that if they surrendered their scriptures, they could come back or if they didn't sure persecutioin:

"The church was horrified by stories of their fellow believers being handed over, along with many of their holiest scriptures, to be destroyed, often not by their enemies, but by traitorous Christian leaders within their own church. The church in North Africa was then faced with the decision “between the Church of traditores (traitors) and persecutors, or the unsullied Church of the martyrs.” A vast majority of North African Christians began seeing themselves as “a church of martyrs.”

Source

"During the persecutions, any Christian who renounced Christianity, made offerings to the Roman state gods and/or the Imperial divine cult, and who burned any sacred Christian texts they may have had, were spared. Those who refused — especially those caught with Christian texts that they refused to hand over or destroy — were usually killed. That texts were often used to determine who was Christian and who wasn’t, meant that the clergy — those Christians most likely to have such things — were particularly vulnerable to the persecution."

Source

Thus set the pattern up until the late 1300's.

Remember John Wycliffe, and John Huss, and how many others?

What else did Martin Luther do that earned the churches wrath?

He put the scriptures in the language of the German people.

And that is one of the principle dividing points between Catholicism and Protestantism today.

We do not revere a man sitting on a throne in Rome.

We do not revere the ECF's.

We do not revere the tradition of the mother church.

And even today, it still continues to a point.

And here is a fact that is undisputable.

If the Reformation wasn't a good thing, if God wasn't behind it, it would have died 600 years ago.

Thank God that many people had the guts and nerve, and the will to stand up to the mother church.

And no matter how you try to "whitewash" it (your term), the Catholic church has a very long history of persecuting, torturing, and even killing those who dare to stand up to its "corruption" as Martin Luther put it.

And that, no amount of whitewash can blot out.

Happy Reformation Day!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JIMINZ]

..........