Happy Reformation Day!!

[DeaconDean]

Does your Church have any special plans for reformation day?

If you mean by that, are we going to have a special day for prayer, no.

If you mean by that, are we going to have a celebration, no.

If you mean by that, are we going to have a dance, no.

If you mean by that, are we going to have anything special to commemorate Reformation Day, no.

I serve in a small country Baptist church. Besides myself, maybe only 3 others have any "formal" schooling in religion. Myself, the Pastor, the Associate Pastor, and another deacon.

Most in my church are only concerned about being Christian first, and Baptist second. Why I doubt that if you asked what "Reformation Day" was in my church, most would look you strangely.

I count myself lucky. In seminary classes, it was seen to that I was given a "Calvinistic Baptist" education. And by Calvinistic, as our history in America shows, also is "Reformed". So I was also given a Reformed education. One of the first Baptist Confession of Faith is purely "Calvinistic". The Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742.

The very first "Southern" CoF, is Calvinistic. THE SANDY CREEK CONFESSION, 1758.

But that is not here nor there.

But in places like here, "Christianforums.com" and other forums, it serves as a reminder of where we came from.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[chilehed]

Think God for the Catholic Church, which has continued to proclaim the True Faith from the time of Christ until today!

CANON 12 - Ifany one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified, let him be accursed.

False quote.

 

[FireDragon76]

While the Reformation has not been without its problems, I am thankful to be living in a world liberated from the shackles of self-serving, anti-humanistic religion. It is hard to believe only a short 500 years old the western world was steeped in darkness, in religious scrupulosity, anxiety, ignorance, and fear. Luther's protest was part of the emerging modern world, with the associated freedoms we all enjoy today. And we should all be thankful for that, whether we are Protestant or Catholic.

I hope in the next 500 years, we as Christians, Protestants and Catholics, will learn to be less religious, less sectarian, less defensive, and more loving, as Jesus taught us to be.

 

[tz620q]

Hey it's a great story.

It is and it got me to look up Johann Tetzel and read about the end of his life. Truly tragic.

 

[amariselle]

Think God for the Catholic Church, which has continued to proclaim the True Faith from the time of Christ until today!

Have you researched the history of the Catholic Church, the Papacy, the Vatican etc.?

False quote.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

~The Council of Trent - Session 6~

More Christians should actually read the many "anathemas" the Catholic Church pronounces on people to this day.

 

[chilehed]

Have you researched the history of the Catholic Church, the Papacy, the Vatican etc.?

I certainly have, which is why I abandoned the false, irrational, man-made teachings of the Protestant Deformation and joined the Catholic Church.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

As I said, your original quote was false.

More Christians should actually read the many "anathemas" the Catholic Church pronounces on people to this day.

It's true, more people should study true teaching.

Anathemas have nothing to do with non-Catholics.

 

[Hammster]

I certainly have, which is why I abandoned the false, irrational, man-made teachings of the Protestant Deformation and joined the Catholic Church.

As I said, your original quote was false.

It's true, more people should study true teaching.

Anathemas have nothing to do with non-Catholics.

So “any one” doesn’t mean “any one”?

 

[BBAS 64]

Interesting canons. Do you disagree with any or all of them?

Good Day, Ginger

I disagree with all of them in part or in whole.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Sadly, it is an invention, not Biblical.

Good day,

Historical events are not inventions, nor are all historical events in the Bible because the Bible is not a history book.

In Him,

Bill

 

[GingerBeer]

Good Day, Ginger

I disagree with all of them in part or in whole.

In Him,

Bill

Why?

 

[amariselle]

I certainly have, which is why I abandoned the false, irrational, man-made teachings of the Protestant Deformation and joined the Catholic Church.

Fair enough. It's your choice, obviously. The history of the Papacy in particular is one of the darkest and most corrupt records in history.

As I said, your original quote was false.

The "original quote" was not mine, actually. What I posted, however, is directly from a Catholic source.

If you still think that's not an accurate quote, perhaps you can provide the correct one?

It's true, more people should study true teaching.

Yes. People should study Scripture. (And the Church "Fathers" did not write inspired Scripture.) So, while their writings may be useful and educational in certain respects, they are not on the same level as the Bible and, like all other teachings and traditions of men, must be subject to Scripture and judged by it.

Anathemas have nothing to do with non-Catholics.

They have everything to do with anyone who rejects accepted Catholic teaching and tradition, which obviously includes "non-Catholics."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Tetzel business was over in a few months and is a poor excuse to apply as a reason for the enemies of Christ and his church.
With Tetzel out of business long before the real beginning of the deformation it's invalid as reason.

Hubris and pride was then as now the driving force in all Protestantism.

Well that sounds objective! What is your basis for saying "the Tetzel business was over in a few months and is a poor excuse" for Luther's protests? Was Tetzel alone in his exaggerated statements on Indulgences (admitted by Catholics) and the attached financial considerations , or did they go deeper than him, thus warranting protest? Was Luther alone in his opposition to the mercantile methods pursued in preaching indulgences?

How do who know the inquisitor Tetzel was only preaching indulgences for a few months? Or was his preaching of indulgences in 1516 near Saxony the primary and immediate cause that precipitated the writing and publishing of Luther's ninety-five theses? After Luther's 95 Theses, did Tetzel not also write a theses in which he gave uncompromising sanction to theological opinions that were not correct as per Catholic judgment?

And Luther's ninety-five theses an open declaration of war, or simply a challenge to academic debate? In your judgment were these objections of an heretical character, or warranting proceedings against Luther?

And after Tetzel' response and the counsel of Luther's ordinary, Bishop Scultetus, did Luther agree to silence and cessation from further publications, but was provoked by attacks on him by Catholics? A year after nailing (or mailing as it were) his theses did not Luther agree to observe silence if his assailants did the same, and which did not (as Carlstadt did not), leading to his debate with Eck who denied that a legitimately assembled council can err and has erred. Traditionalists RC today would find fault with that. But once provoked, Luther became further unstoppable in his opposition to elitist Rome, with her opes which deny salvation to all who will not submit to them.

Was Luther correct in all he taught? No: he even continued to hold to certain Catholic errors. Was he contentious, sometimes crude in speech and irascible, reactionary, prolix, pugnacious, and given to to extreme hyperbole (thereby furnishing many out-of-context quotes for his adversaries)? Yes. . Did he handle the peasant revolt wisely. Hardly. Did he become bitter against enemies, in particular recalcitrant blaspheming Jews? Yes.

Did he go far enough in reformation? No. To do so would mean being as the prima NT church, which endeavor is not "hubris and pride" but holy, and which NT church,

1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

2. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.

3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

• an "omnipotent" or almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
​

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.​

 

[Major1]

Unfortunately this opinion is not rare in the "Protestant"/"Evangelical" world today.

Many respected "Protestant" and "Evangelical" leaders have formally united with Rome, met with the Pope at the Vatican and signed joint declarations of "unity" declaring the "Protest" to be over.

A large number of Christians today truly do not understand the irreconcilable differences that still exist between the Catholic churchs' doctrines and traditions and those of true "Protestants" and "Evangelicals".

Some of the leading missionary organizations have also been working alongside Catholics for years as well.

There is so much confusion in the Church today.

I wonder where/who the confusion is coming from?????

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Think God for the Catholic Church, which has continued to proclaim the True Faith from the time of Christ until today!

WRONG. While holding enough to salvific Truths among her trappings of traditions of men so that some souls could truly come to the Lord Jesus in humble contrite faith and be saved, the varied history of Catholicism is a testimony to an accretion of errors which make the word of God void, from teaching that man must become actually good enough in character to enter glory/Heaven, to her distinctive sacerdotal class of clergy, to praying to created beings in Heaven, etc. See the lower portion of above post by the grave of God.

 

[tz620q]

They have everything to do with anyone who rejects accepted Catholic teaching and tradition, which obviously includes "non-Catholics."

An anathema is a threat of ex-communication of Catholics for the holding of what the Catholic Church considers false doctrine. So how does this even apply to non-Catholics?

 

[Major1]

If you mean by that, are we going to have a special day for prayer, no.

If you mean by that, are we going to have a celebration, no.

If you mean by that, are we going to have a dance, no.

If you mean by that, are we going to have anything special to commemorate Reformation Day, no.

I serve in a small country Baptist church. Besides myself, maybe only 3 others have any "formal" schooling in religion. Myself, the Pastor, the Associate Pastor, and another deacon.

Most in my church are only concerned about being Christian first, and Baptist second. Why I doubt that if you asked what "Reformation Day" was in my church, most would look you strangely.

I count myself lucky. In seminary classes, it was seen to that I was given a "Calvinistic Baptist" education. And by Calvinistic, as our history in America shows, also is "Reformed". So I was also given a Reformed education. One of the first Baptist Confession of Faith is purely "Calvinistic". The Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742.

The very first "Southern" CoF, is Calvinistic. THE SANDY CREEK CONFESSION, 1758.

But that is not here nor there.

But in places like here, "Christianforums.com" and other forums, it serves as a reminder of where we came from.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Excellent! I agree completely.

Reformation Day is not a special day but instead it is a doctrine that transformed the Christian religion into what God has already said that it should be.

Ephesians 2:8-9............
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Did God say it?
Can God lie?
Is hell real?

 

[amariselle]

I wonder where/who the confusion is coming from?????

It's ultimately a spiritual battle, of course. In terms of where the confusion is coming from within the Church, a lot of it has been caused by the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) which teaches (among many erroneous doctrines) that Christians are building an earthly kingdom for Christ and that He will not/cannot return until they do so.

They claim to hear "new" words and revelations from God. The leaders claim to be modern day "prophets" and "apostles" who are revealing what God is doing in the world today, a coming "great revival", "the new move of God", "breakthrough" etc.

They are teaching things like "the 7 Mountain/Sphere Mandate", dominionsim , Kingdom Now, etc.

The operate in "higher anointing", "impartations", "manifestations" (Holy Laughter, being "drunk in the Spirit")

And many of them have officially joined with the Pope. Emotional experience and "encounters" with God are replacing sound doctrine.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

While the Reformation has not been without its problems, I am thankful to be living in a world liberated from the shackles of self-serving, anti-humanistic religion. It is hard to believe only a short 500 years old the western world was steeped in darkness, in religious scrupulosity, anxiety, ignorance, and fear. Luther's protest was part of the emerging modern world, with the associated freedoms we all enjoy today. And we should all be thankful for that, whether we are Protestant or Catholic.

But many RCs seem to long for the "good ol days:"

Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess i t without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land . (Internet History Sourcebooks Project, emp. mine)

 

[amariselle]

An anathema is a threat of ex-communication of Catholics for the holding of what the Catholic Church considers false doctrine. So how does this even apply to non-Catholics?

It's more than just a "threat of excommunication".

 

[Albion]

An anathema is a threat of ex-communication of Catholics for the holding of what the Catholic Church considers false doctrine. So how does this even apply to non-Catholics?

Well, it's a judgment rendered against non-Catholics. But OTOH, it's only the RCatholic Church's verdict, and very few non-Catholics would consider that to be meaningful.

If they did, I would think that they'd join the Catholic Church and submit to its dogmas and judgments.