Happy Reformation Day!!!

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

Seeing this day is approaching, I thought it would be a good idea to post some quotes about the reformation. I have enjoyed Cajun Huguenot past threads about this issue, if you have fav's post them.

[PETER KREEFT]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Roman Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft writes (cited in http://www.equip.org/free/DC-170-1.htm):[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][/font]

[font=Times New Roman,Times]How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed — indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God's separated Catholic and Protestant children.[/font][font=Times New Roman,Times][/font] [font=Times New Roman,Times]Much of the Catholic Church has not yet caught up with Luther; and for that matter, much of Protestantism has regressed from him. The churches are often found preaching one of two "other gospels": the gospel of old-fashion legalism or the gospel of new-fangled humanism. The first means making points with God and earning your way into heaven, the second means being nice to everybody so that God will be nice to you. The churches, Protestant and Catholic, may also preach the true Christian gospel, but not often enough and not clearly enough and often watered down and mixed with one of these two other gospels. And the trouble with "other gospels" is simply that they are not true: they don't work, they don't unite man with God, they don't justify. (Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, p. 290.)[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][/font]

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[jonas3]

Hmm...

Martin Luther said,

"He bore the sins of the entire world...He has and bears all the sins of all men in His body...The sins of the whole world, which are committed from the first man to the last day thereof, lie upon the back of that one man who was born of Mary" - (Luther’s Works, vol. 26).

“God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ’s sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy.” – (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

“The words, “Ye are fallen from grace,” must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation.” – (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

“To entertain a true conception of Christ is important [really?], for the devil describes Christ as an exacting and cruel judge who condemns and punishes men. Tell him that his definition of Christ is wrong, that Christ has given Himself for our sins, that by His sacrifice He has taken away the sins of the whole world.” - (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

“Isaiah declares of Christ: “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” We have no right to minimize the force of this declaration. God does not amuse Himself with words. What a relief for a Christian to know that Christ is covered all over with my sins, your sins, and the sins of the whole world.” – (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

"As for us, we are obliged to preach the Gospel which offers to all men liberty from the Law, sin, death, and God’s wrath." - (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

"The sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him." - (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

"In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that He should pay for them with His own blood." - (A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians)

According to Luther, this "christ" paid for the sins of all men with his own blood. The blood of this "christ" is upon all men without exception. Yet, some with whom the blood is upon will go to hell for all eternity? Just think of an "atonement" in which the blood is upon everyone without exception, and a "god" who would condemn some who had the blood of this "christ" upon them? In this "atonement", the blood itself wouldn't make the difference between who was saved and who was condemned. There would have to be one of two things going on: Either this "god" thinks the blood has no importance and just condemns at random, or this god finds something good in some of the people with the blood on them as compared to the other people who also had the blood on them, thus not basing salvation on the blood at all but on something in the persons themselves. Then the question must be asked, "Well, why would the blood be needed at all, since it doesn't make the difference between salvation and damnation?" The answer is, "The blood wouldn't be needed at all. The blood itself is without value!" Pure wickedness. Luther was a staunch Catholic. The only difference is that Luther said "faith" alone makes this "christ's" sacrifice effective towards a person, and not "faith" + works.

-jonas

 

[HiredGoon]

Reformation Day Song (sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"):

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law;
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian! Oh …

Chorus: Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St. Peter’s profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints’ Bull’tin board:
“You cannot purchase merits, for we’re justified by grace!
Here’s 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face! Oh…

Chorus: Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
“Are these your books? Do you recant?” King Charles did demand,
“I will not change me Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand.” Oh…

Chorus: Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting “George” as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin’s model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek! Oh…

Chorus: Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Let’s raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that “catholic” is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance! Oh…

Chorus: Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

 

[Fish and Bread]

The Jewish Passover is the celebration of God sparing the firstborn children of Israeli, when he wiped out the firstborn in the nation of Egypt, since the Pharoh would not allow the Israelites to leave each Egypt. How did the Jews escape this action? God told them to slaughter lambs and spread their blood over their doorsteps and, indeed, their firstborn children were spared by this act.

The New Testament tells us that Christ is our Passover lamb. By spreading his blood on our doorsteps, through faith and baptism, we spare ourselves the fate of the rest of the world. Now, some would argue that faith and baptism are works, but Martin Luther, the founder of the Reformation and the "faith alone" movement, never thought so. Faith is not something generated through our doing, it is a gift of God which we receive. And our baptisms are God acting through water, not us obtaining something by our own virtueous deeds.

From my perspective, the problem that the Roman Catholic Church had at the time of the Reformation is that they were "works fundamentalists". Essentially, I'd describe their perspective as we must do a series of things through our own goodness to find favor with the Lord. That's not the Gospel, in my view. On the other hand, sometimes Protestanism can in it's worst moments take it to the opposite extreme and say "Let's sit back on our heels and do nothing, because we accept that Jesus exists and that's all that matters".

To me, when we say we're saved by grace through faith, that illustrates that we are saved because God has granted us the ability to be faithful, in other words to have an inward condition of love and the spirit of faithful servanthood in our hearts. The basic point of many of Jesus' actions in the New Testament seemed to be that of primacy importance is what is in our hearts and not the work of our hands. However, almost no one who has a true condition of love and faithfulness in his heart is going to react by doing nothing. To truly be faithful, you have to take action. But it is not the actions that are salvic, which is to say that someone might do only a few works and stumble often and be saved, whereas someone who does great works but has not faith, may be damned. So, I think the heresy we have to avoid as children of the Reformation is the idea that faith has no relationship to action -- someone who says they believe but takes no action is likely akin to those who cry "Lord, Lord" at the gates of heaven and are told "I never knew you". We have to be careful that in refuting the heresy that works are a way of earning salvation, we don't go so far as to say that faithfulness is entirely a condition of simply believing that Jesus is the Christ -- after all, the demons even believed that and professed it at times (!), but they were not faithful.

John

 

[BBAS 64]

Hmm...

Martin Luther said,

"He bore the sins of the entire world...He has and bears all the sins of all men in His body...The sins of the whole world, which are committed from the first man to the last day thereof, lie upon the back of that one man who was born of Mary" - (Luther’s Works, vol. 26).

“God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ’s sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy.” – (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

“The words, “Ye are fallen from grace,” must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation.” – (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

“To entertain a true conception of Christ is important [really?], for the devil describes Christ as an exacting and cruel judge who condemns and punishes men. Tell him that his definition of Christ is wrong, that Christ has given Himself for our sins, that by His sacrifice He has taken away the sins of the whole world.” - (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

“Isaiah declares of Christ: “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” We have no right to minimize the force of this declaration. God does not amuse Himself with words. What a relief for a Christian to know that Christ is covered all over with my sins, your sins, and the sins of the whole world.” – (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

"As for us, we are obliged to preach the Gospel which offers to all men liberty from the Law, sin, death, and God’s wrath." - (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

"The sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him." - (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians)

"In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that He should pay for them with His own blood." - (A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians)

According to Luther, this "christ" paid for the sins of all men with his own blood. The blood of this "christ" is upon all men without exception. Yet, some with whom the blood is upon will go to hell for all eternity? Just think of an "atonement" in which the blood is upon everyone without exception, and a "god" who would condemn some who had the blood of this "christ" upon them? In this "atonement", the blood itself wouldn't make the difference between who was saved and who was condemned. There would have to be one of two things going on: Either this "god" thinks the blood has no importance and just condemns at random, or this god finds something good in some of the people with the blood on them as compared to the other people who also had the blood on them, thus not basing salvation on the blood at all but on something in the persons themselves. Then the question must be asked, "Well, why would the blood be needed at all, since it doesn't make the difference between salvation and damnation?" The answer is, "The blood wouldn't be needed at all. The blood itself is without value!" Pure wickedness. Luther was a staunch Catholic. The only difference is that Luther said "faith" alone makes this "christ's" sacrifice effective towards a person, and not "faith" + works.

-jonas

Good Day, Jonas

Your conclusion is Flawed as the RCC disagrees with you. Ever read Trent?

Faith Alone,

The doctrine by which the church stands or falls... Luther

Faith and works falls.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Fish and Bread]

Good Day, Jonas

Your conclusion is Flawed as the RCC disagrees with you. Ever read Trent?

The idea that "Catholic" means "in communion with the Vatican" is not the sense of the word "Catholic" that the earliest Christians seemed to have had. "Catholic" rather seems to mean being part of the universal Christian Church with the fullness of truth. In that sense, there are many Catholics not in communion with the Vatican, and many in communion with the Vatican who may not entirely be Catholic. The Pope would like us to think that one must be in his church to be Catholic, but I don't believe he's correct in that assumption. Martin Luther, as far as I know, always professed to be fully Catholic, he just professed not to be fully Roman.

John

 

[Erinwilcox]

Hired Goon,

I loved the Reformation Day song!!! It really made my evening!

 

[janny108]

We were all given a video after sunday school about Martin Luther. Gonna watch it tomorrow!

Jan

 

[edie19]

Hired Goon,

I loved the Reformation Day song!!! It really made my evening!

I sent it to my music leader at church - I'm hoping he'll have us sing it sometime (alright, maybe not at a worship service - but it would still be fun).

 

[jonas3]

We were all given a video after sunday school about Martin Luther. Gonna watch it tomorrow!

Jan

Feel free to watch it, as I would likely watch it myself; however, Luther was unregenerate (i.e. not a Christian) when he made the statements that he made in my above post (i.e. #2). I know not whether Luther ever renounced those statements, but I can say that at the time of his writing of them, he was lost (i.e. unregenerate). He wrote that commentary in 1535. He died in 1546.

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." - Acts 5:29

-jonas

 

[Bulldog]

So do we exchange gifts or something?

 

[Tertiumquid]

Feel free to watch it, as I would likely watch it myself; however, Luther was unregenerate (i.e. not a Christian) when he made the statements that he made in my above post (i.e. #2). I know not whether Luther ever renounced those statements, but I can say that at the time of his writing of them, he was lost (i.e. unregenerate). He wrote that commentary in 1535. He died in 1546.

-jonas

Hi Jonas,

Is your argument that Luther made statements that are contrary to limited atonment? If it is, I would simply like to know how familiar you are with Luther's theology.If it were me, I would really want to know exactly what someone believed before I sent them off to hell.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[jonas3]

Hi Jonas,

Is your argument that Luther made statements that are contrary to limited atonment? If it is, I would simply like to know how familiar you are with Luther's theology.If it were me, I would really want to know exactly what someone believed before I sent them off to hell.

Regards,
James Swan

I did not condemn Luther to hell. Did you read my post? I said, and I quote myself, "I know not whether Luther ever renounced those statements, but I can say that at the time of his writing of them, he was lost (i.e. unregenerate)." Then I went so far to say that he wrote the commentary in 1535, and died in 1546 to show that there were 11 years in which God may have regenerated him. A Christian will NEVER condemn someone to hell.

All who do not believe the gospel, which is God's promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ, are lost (i.e. unregenerate). It is written,

"3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." - 2Cor 4:3-4

Luther did NOT believe the gospel when he was a universal atonement advocate, and I know not whether he ever renounced those statements.

-jonas

 

[Fish and Bread]

Feel free to watch it, as I would likely watch it myself; however, Luther was unregenerate (i.e. not a Christian) when he made the statements that he made in my above post (i.e. #2). I know not whether Luther ever renounced those statements, but I can say that at the time of his writing of them, he was lost (i.e. unregenerate). He wrote that commentary in 1535. He died in 1546.

I think it is best for us to allow Jesus to judge humanity and not try to do his job for him. After all, we will all stand before his thrown on the day of the Last Judgement, and he told us to judge not, lest we be judged. It's probably a good idea to heed that advice as best we can.

I trust that Jesus will do his job perfectly, but, based on my limited knowledge of the way things are, I hope he does so with compassion for those who are deceived or who believe inaccurate doctrine. For who amongst us discerns perfectly? The scriptures themselves say that we all see but through a mirror darkly. If only those who perfectly understand the Gospel in it's fullness are going to go to heaven, a lot of those "many rooms" Jesus talked about in the scripture are going to go to waste. I certainly hope we can be Christians without knowing everything perfectly.

John

 

[erin74]

This is part of a letter that was sent to us by friends of ours who are missionaries in Slovenia. I thought you might appreciate it.

The protestant reformation which occurred across much of Europe in the sixteenth century had a large impact on Slovenia. The reformation was a time when many Christian rediscovered the important biblical truths of how we know God by his grace alone, which comes through Christ alone, who is found in scripture alone and to whom we respond in faith alone. The Reformation is significant to Slovenes for many reasons and they commemorate it each year with a public holiday on the 31st October called “Reformation Day”. One of the main Slovene tourist brochures about Ljubljana describes the effect of the Reformation like this: “Protestantism and the Reformation brought the first secondary school, a public library, a printing house, the first Slovene books, and general spiritual progress to the city, while the [Catholic] counter-reformation brought a certain spiritual stagnation”. It is encouraging to see the media express such positive thoughts about the effects of Christianity during this time, however the rediscovery and belief in key biblical truths is constantly missed and forgotten. Reformation day presents the church with a great opportunity for evangelism. On Sunday we will be having an evangelistic service to celebrate Reformation Day. David Shead will be preaching a sermon adapted from Slovenia’s most famous reformer Primož Trubar. Trubar is viewed so highly in Slovenia that his face is on the 10 Tollar note (=10¢). Please pray for all of us at REC as we seek to invite family and friends to come and here the real biblical truths of the Reformation. Pray that many Slovenes will be convicted of the truth of the gospel.

​

​

 

[Tertiumquid]

Luther did NOT believe the gospel when he was a universal atonement advocate, and I know not whether he ever renounced those statements.

I usually spoon-feed Roman Catholics correct information about Luther, because they are involved in a tradition that has a hard time seeing past their own bias. Protestants though, particularly those who appear to be Reformed I hold to much higher standards. That being said, I get the feeling you're not going to do the work necessary to understand Luther's view. So, for the benefit of others:



The person of Christ is inseparable from His work. The whole key to Luther’s entire approach to salvation is the bringing together of divine nature and human nature into a person who can take on the forces of evil, who can wrestle death to the ground, who can express in “the magnificent duel” everything that God has done for us.


The “magnificent dual” is between Christ on the one hand, and death/Satan/sin/law on the other. Jesus is the one who, “gobbles down” death. Within a framework of the theology of the cross, in his impotence and weakness Christ submitted to death and then swallowed death up, so that it can threaten us no more. Christ took on sin in a dual, and he took sin into himself. Sin accused and condemned him, and then it had to vanish because Christ is the righteous one.

Luther taught the “joyous exchange”: Christ was righteous and the sinner was sinful. Jesus the righteous one took the sinners sin into himself and in exchange bestows upon us righteousness and innocence. Luther began talking about this in 1518, and this concept is found in his thinking till the end of his life.

Luther’s concept of the atonement focuses on how worldly wisdom would see the impotence and the foolishness of the cross, but in reality it was the triumph of the cross that brought about the swallowing up of death and the claiming of life again for His people. He called this the “joyous exchange.” In this, we exchange our sins for Christ’s righteousness. Sinners die in Christ and receive a new creation, a new life.


As it relates to the atonement, Luther’s theology of the cross spells out the death of every human pretension to merit. All glory of human effort and work is gone. Sinners do not control their own destiny.


Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulen in his book Christus Victor surveyed three atonement motifs found in the history of Christendom. The first was the Christus victor motif. It is the ancient motif which emphasized God’s victory over the external enemies of the human creature through the resurrection. The second is the vicarious satisfaction motif. Christ becomes the substitute for us in satisfying the demands of the law of God. The third is the motif of Christ as an example for human creatures to follow. Humans are said to attain their true humanity in imitating Christ

Aulen stressed that Luther was a theologian of the Christus victor type, as opposed to most Luther scholars, who stressed that Luther’s view was the vicarious satisfaction motif. Scholar Paul Althaus disagreed with Aulen and said Luther’s view is the vicarious satisfaction motif. Ian Siggens may have Luther’s view right when he says Luther has no atonement theory at all. Luther never says, “This is a total explanation of how and why God had to save through the incarnation of Christ.” He says Luther shares the atonement motifs of the scripture. Luther uses every scrap and bit of biblical material he can to express the mystery of the atonement without trying to pin down an explanation.

In dealing with The Joyous exchange, Luther cuts no corners in confronting the wraith of God upon human sin. Much of the concern in the critique of Aulen was that his Christus victor understanding seemed to allow a shortchanging of Luther’s emphasis on the wraith of God against our sin.



Regards,
James Swan

 

[KEPLER]

To James (aka TertiumQuid) and then to Jonas,

James, Thank you.

You did that much more kindly than I would have, and I'm glad you got to it first. Although I have MANY friends who are Reformed, if my buttons get pushed, I find myself using strongly negative adjectives when describing the doctrine of limited atonement.

In the form of critique, Jonas, all I will say is that the Reformed fall victim to their own logic on this issue. So much emphasis is placed on figuring out the "mathematics" and technical side of salvation that the sublimity and enormity is obfuscated.

I cannot stand at the base of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park and expect to describe that mountain completely. Nor can I stand at its peak and do so. All I can describe is what I can see at that moment. And so with Scripture: "We see through a glass darkly", the Apostle tells us. Everything we NEED to know has been revealed, but that is not all there is, as St. John tells us.

We know WHY someone goes to heaven: because of the Grace of God given in His Son Jesus Christ, who shed His blood to make payment for sin. God gets all the credit for salvation. Jesus said, "No one comes to me unless the father draws him."

We know WHY someone will perish: because they reject God and all His Gracious goodness. Man gets all the credit for damnation. Jesus said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, I would have gathered you to me as a Hen gathers her chicks, but YOU WOULD NOT."

I am reminded of the final scene in C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle. The door to the Upper Region (I think that's what it's called) has been opened, and the Children have almost all gone through, but Aslan stops, because some Dwarves are sitting in the barn, refusing to see that the door is open, or that Aslan is even there. He breathes on them and speaks to them, begs them to follow, but all they sense is stench and noise: "The Dwarves are for the Dwarves."

We do NOT know...Scripture does NOT tell us, why it is that one person goes to heaven, while another goes to hell. These are not comparable categories. That is the paradox which we are NOT told, this side of Glory, how to resolve. To dabble in it is to be "caught up in the vain philosophies of men."

Limited Atonement is not the solution, but neither is its opposite, absolute free will.

I will go to my grave, my friend, believing that Jesus died for the ENTIRE world, every last man, woman, and child, because that is what Scripture says.

Pax Christi tibi,

Eric

 

[Fish and Bread]

Eric (Kepler) has expressed this point far more elequently than I could have, so I won't say much on this topic, other than to express my agreement with and appreciation for his perspective. I had a priest who gave a sermon about this once and he said a phrase that has stuck with me, which was that orthodoxy lays somewhere between the two extremes of total free will and a complete lack thereof. The bible tells us at times that we can choose and at times that we can not. It is my opinion that we won't truly understand how the passages all fit together until the afterlife, when we'll have a more complete view of things, but the best approximation I can come up with is "It's a little of each".
John

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

I really hate to be a pain in the neck!!

BUT

Does any one have any quotes they like to share in hounor of this great day, in which the "faith" one delivered to the the saints was saved from the error of Romanism which is another Gospel.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[KEPLER]

Good Day, All

I really hate to be a pain in the neck!!

BUT

Does any one have any quotes they like to share in hounor of this great day, in which the "faith" one delivered to the the saints was saved from the error of Romanism which is another Gospel.

Peace to u,

Bill

Oh, ahem, yes, well...uh...(clears throat)...SO!

Simul justus et peccator

Pecca fortiter!

Whoever would be a theologian using Aristotle is no theologian at all!

Better to drink blood with the Papists than drink wine with the memorialists!