How revelant is the Reformation for us today?

[dms1972]

I refer to the Reformation of the 16th century (Calvin, Luther et al). Many changes in the world and in thought have taken place - first there was the Enlightenment, which did not penetrate everywhere equally, but more so in Germany, and France. In it the deistic and athestic motifs from the classics writes Peter Gay, possessed the minds of the young leaders of the enlightenment with a very powerful spiritual force, effecting what can only be described as conversions - away from Christianity. Now we have postmodernism which is in many ways a rejection of the optimism of the Enlightenment, and the myth of progress. Yet modernity is still with us. In the light of these changes should we get back into the writings and theology of the Reformation? Or is God doing something new today? Was the Reformation and its writings, theology only relevant to the situation of that age, or is it still relevant today. Are some aspects relevant and others not? Which are relevant for today?

 

[amariselle]

I refer to the Reformation of the 16th century (Calvin, Luther et al). Should we get back to their writings and theology? Or is God doing something new today? Was the Reformation and its writings, theology relevant to the situation of that age, or is it still relevant today. Are some aspects relevant and others not? Which are relevant for today?

Rather than follow the teachings and traditions of men (or women), what Christians need to do today is what we have always needed to do: get back to Scripture, sound teaching and careful Biblical study. As we have been exhorted to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

 

[faroukfarouk]

I refer to the Reformation of the 16th century (Calvin, Luther et al). Should we get back to their writings and theology? Or is God doing something new today? Was the Reformation and its writings, theology relevant to the situation of that age, or is it still relevant today. Are some aspects relevant and others not? Which are relevant for today?

Rather than cherry pick, it's all about the Bible as the Word of God.

Those who by God's grace love it and seek to follow it are likely to think one thing; and those who don't, another.

 

[Knee V]

I would argue that the Reformation was never relevant and got a whole heck of a lot of things fundamentally wrong. If Luther was serious about wanting to simply reform the church, he was not too geographically distant from the "eastern" churches in Europe who also took issue with Rome's abuses at the time (see St Mark of Ephesus and the Council of Florence less than a century prior), and he could have gotten counsel and help from them. But he didn't.

 

[συνείδησις]

I would argue that the Reformation was never relevant and got a whole heck of a lot of things fundamentally wrong. If Luther was serious about wanting to simply reform the church, he was not too geographically distant from the "eastern" churches in Europe who also took issue with Rome's abuses at the time (see St Mark of Ephesus and the Council of Florence less than a century prior), and he could have gotten counsel and help from them. But he didn't.

Both Calvin and Luther knew what the early fathers wrote, yet rejected some of that to follow Augustine. I wonder if some reason for that (conscious or not) was to distance themselves from the eastern churches.

 

[sdowney717]

Today, rampant apostasy, I question if it was any better back then either regarding people following the truth in scripture. The reformers were accurate about sola scriptura. Today we still experience the same controversies they had to address. Their work was the protestant reformation, do you like being a protestant? Lutheranism today is nothing like Luther was back then.

 

[dms1972]

Rather than follow the teachings and traditions of men (or women), what Christians need to do today is what we have always needed to do: get back to Scripture, sound teaching and careful Biblical study. As we have been exhorted to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

This getting back to Scripture, or rather having access to the scripture in ones own language was what gave rise to the Reformation was it not? Wasn't that one of their main contentions: Sola Scripture?

 

[Knee V]

Both Calvin and Luther knew what the early fathers wrote, yet rejected some of that to follow Augustine. I wonder if some reason for that (conscious or not) was to distance themselves from the eastern churches.

What I see them doing (one of many things they did wrong) was having a skewed view of Augustine, then seeing the Apostle Paul in that skewed light, giving them a skewed understanding of Paul, and then looking at all the rest of scripture in light of that skewed understanding of Paul.

 

[dms1972]

Today, rampant apostasy, I question if it was any better back then either regarding people following the truth in scripture. The reformers were accurate about sola scriptura. Today we still experience the same controversies they had to address. Their work was the protestant reformation, do you like being a protestant? Lutheranism today is nothing like Luther was back then.

Can you say in what way does Lutheranism today differs from Luther?

 

[Albion]

I would have to answer that it is relevant to our times, but of course secular society has continued to evolve over the last 500 years or so, which has challenged both the Catholic and the Protestant churches.

 

[dms1972]

What I see them doing (one of many things they did wrong) was having a skewed view of Augustine, then seeing the Apostle Paul in that skewed light, giving them a skewed understanding of Paul, and then looking at all the rest of scripture in light of that skewed understanding of Paul.

Thankyou for your comments, can you say further what you mean by a "skewed view of Augustine". I tend to feel that in reading a theologian from a previous century its not always so simple as just reading them to get what they were saying back then, much has changed.

 

[Albion]

This getting back to Scripture, or rather having access to the scripture in ones own language was what gave rise to the Reformation was it not? Wasn't that their one of their main contentions: Sola Scripture?

There was certainly a concern that the Medieval Church had forbidden ordinary persons from having access to the Bible on the grounds that only the Church could interpret it for them--infallibly--and, also, that the Church was empowered by God to add doctrines based upon something other than the Bible.

However, the criticism of the first part of that is not what is meant by Sola Scriptura. Its importance has never waned, whereas the concern over the availability of the Bible has been solved by technology and a grudging concession by the Roman Catholic Church. She now supports a very Protestant practice--Bible study groups.

 

[Knee V]

Thankyou for your comments, can you say further what you mean by a "skewed view of Augustine". I tend to feel that in reading a theologian from a previous century its not always so simple as just reading them to get what they were saying back then, much has changed.

If you have a few minutes, here is an article from an Orthodox perspective about Augustine's place and status. I think this article pretty well sums up where I am coming from.

A relevant excerpt:

Father Seraphim convincingly argues, with a multitude of primary references, that, while Augustine's ideas may have been used and distorted in the West to produce more modern theories (such as Calvinistic predestination, sola gratia, or even deism), the Saint himself was not guilty of the kind of innovative theologizing that his more extreme detractors would claim he championed. Indeed, Father Seraphim shows that Augustine never denied the free will of the individual; that his view of grace was one which, in later years, largely through the influence of his Western contemporaries, he felt compelled to revise; and that his understanding of God, despite his overly logical approach to theology, was derived from a deeply Orthodox encounter with the Trinity—something which a passing interest in his Confessions would aver. Attached to his argument for a moderate understanding of Saint Augustine are gleanings from Father Seraphim's study of the Patristic reaction to Augustine. To a number, the great Fathers of the Church whom he cites count Augustine among the great Fathers, qualifying their praise with precisely, the words of the author of this little book: that Saint Augustine wrote from an Orthodox heart and with an Orthodox mind, but erred in expressing himself with too much dependence on human logic and philosophical rigor, thus exposing his teaching to later gross distortions, making his small errors great ones.

 

[amariselle]

This getting back to Scripture, or rather having access to the scripture in ones own language was what gave rise to the Reformation was it not? Wasn't that their one of their main contentions: Sola Scripture?

Yes. Scripture is obviously no less important today.

 

[dms1972]

There was certainly a concern that the Medieval Church had forbidden ordinary persons from having access to the Bible on the grounds that only the Church could interpret it for them--infallibly--and, also, that the Church was empowered by God to add doctrines based upon something other than the Bible.

However, the criticism of the first part of that is not what is meant by Sola Scriptura. Its importance has never waned, whereas the concern over the availability of the Bible has been solved by technology and a grudging concession by the Roman Catholic Church. She now supports a very Protestant practice--Bible study groups.

Can you explain, or give me a link to what sola scripture actually means?

I read someone describe two approaches to scripture once, one was like reading the Bible in a grain silo, any light it gives off was contained, the other to view the Bible as a lighthouse, casting its light far and wide.

Does sola scripture preclude reading classics like Shakespeare.

Its interesting that Daniel was not unfamiliar with the pagan literature of his day, he pretty much had the same learning as the Nebuchadnezzar's magicians, and enchanters, but also a higher wisdom because he prayed regularly to God most high.

 

[Albion]

Can you explain, or give me a link to what sola scripture actually means?

Well, it means that Scripture contains all that is necessary for (our) salvation and all that can be required of church members by the church. Practically speaking, it means that the church cannot dogmatize non-essential teachings or add to the Bible what is usually called Holy Tradition, meaning beliefs that the (Catholic) church says have always been believed by the whole church, regardless of whether the Bible speaks to it or not, claiming that this is divine revelation no less than Scripture.

Does sola scripture preclude reading classics like Shakespeare.

Certainly not. Were you thinking that it might mean that Scripture alone is what we are allowed to read?

 

[sdowney717]

Can you say in what way does Lutheranism today differs from Luther?

Read Luther's writings and compare to what Lutherans believe today about the reformers doctrine.
Luther wrote incredibly fiery yet true words about the scriptures. The doctrine of election and reprobation heads up the list.

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: Did Martin Luther himself teach the doctrine of single predestination, or did he fully affirm the election and reprobation of God in eternity past?

If the former, then the division between the Lutherans and Calvinists remains a legitimate outworking of their respective theological traditions. However, if the latter is indeed the case, then the Lutheran tradition finds itself in the uncomfortable as well as compromising position of proclaiming a doctrine their father in the faith rejected.

 

[wilts43]

Both Calvin and Luther knew what the early fathers wrote, yet rejected some of that to follow Augustine. I wonder if some reason for that (conscious or not) was to distance themselves from the eastern churches.

Would that be This Augustine....Catholic Bishop of Hippo...who wrote:
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they would not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard."
The True Religion, 7,12, 397 A.D.
"This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her."
Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.
"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church."
Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.
"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves."
Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.
"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19)."
Sermons 295,2, 391 A.D.
"What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons."
Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.
"Since by Christ's favor we are Catholic Christians:"
Letter to Vitalis, 217,5,16, 427 A.D.
"By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the Catholic Church."
Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.
"Tell us straight out that you do not believe in the Gospel of Christ; for you believe what you want in the Gospel and disbelieve what you want. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel."
Against Faustus, 17, 3, 400 A.D.
"Do you claim to be strong? You will be beaten by beasts. Do you claim speed? Flies are faster. Do you claim beauty? What great beauty there is in a peafowl's feathers. How are you better, then, than these? By the image of GOD. And where is GOD's image? In your mind, in your intellect."
Homilies on the Gospel of John, 3,4, 416 A.D.
"Adam sleeps that Eve may be formed; Christ dies that the Church may be formed. Eve is formed from the side of the sleeping Adam; the side of the dead Christ is pierced by the lance, so that the Sacraments may flow out, of which the Church is formed."
Homilies on the Gospel of John, 9,10, 416 A.D.
"Man, destined to die, labors to avert his dying; and yet man, destined to live in eternity, does not labor to avoid sinning."
Homilies on the Gospel of John, 49,2, 416 A.D.
"What the soul is to man's body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of one body. But see what you must beware of, see what you must take note of, see what you must fear. It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away. And if a member be cut off, does the soul go with it? When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too, a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member."
Sermons, 267, 4, 391-430 A.D.
"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of GOD is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church."
Christian Combat 31,33, 396 A.D.
"If you want GOD to forgive, you must confess. Sin cannot go unpunished. It were seemingly, improper, and unjust for sin to go unpunished. Since, therefore, sin must not go unpunished, let it be punished by you, lest you be punished for it. Let your sin have you for its judge, not its patron.
Go up and take the bench against yourself, and put the guilt before yourself.
Do not put it behind you, or GOD will put it in front of you."
Sermons, 20,2, 410 A.D.
"The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and the death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints. When, then, we see so much help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic Chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority."
The Advantage of Believing, 391 A.D
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The so-called "Reformers" cherry-pIcked" from Augustine's orthodox Catholic writings against Pelagianism.
Of necessity (in that anti-heretical work) Augustine's focus therein was on what the heretics denied.....the necessity of Grace.
It was violence to Augustine to decontextualise, isolate & then exploit his words, to provide some meagre ancient support that could plausibly support the new Gospel of Protestantism.

 

[wilts43]

Today, rampant apostasy, I question if it was any better back then either regarding people following the truth in scripture. The reformers were accurate about sola scriptura. Today we still experience the same controversies they had to address. Their work was the protestant reformation, do you like being a protestant? Lutheranism today is nothing like Luther was back then.

There is a lot of American Protestant reverse-engineering of History around the original Reformers.
They claimed "Sola Scriptura" for themselves.......not for the masses.
Luther & Calvin both assumed initially their personal interpretation would be incontestable.
They both approved of the death penalty for "heretic" like Anabaptists who read the Bible differently.

"Sola Scriptura" must be the weakest of all slogans
Never has a such patently & demonstrably false assertion been believed by so many
"Sola Scriptura" is 16th Century "invention of man"
(1)"Sola Scriptura" (Bible-alone) is NOWHERE in The Bible.
So it is a self-defeating assertion!
It fails its own test.....it ISN'T in the Bible.....SO; IT'S NOT TRUE!

(2) Explicitly contradicted in The Bible
If you did "stick to the bible" you will believe The Catholic Church (not the Bible) "
is this pillar & foundation of truth"
"(1 Timothy 3:15)

(3) "Bible-Alone" necessitates ANOTHER authority
Because "Bible-Alone" is not in The Bible you are relying on ANOTHER authority or tradition (Who/What?) to invent the phrase "Bible Alone".
(It was invented by Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ!)
So you then have; Bible-(NOT-alone)+Luther/Calvin/Zwingli/My-Pastor etc.

(4)An infallible Compilation requires an infallible Compiler.
Because the Bible is not a book, but a SELECTIVE COMPENDIUM of many books, "The Bible" can't even tell you itself which books should be in it!
You need ANOTHER authority to do this!

A river cannot flow higher than its source.
The Authority of The Church precedes the authority of scripture.
And the authority of scripture rests upon the authority of the Church that selected its contents & tells us what it is. They had to interpret infallibly to select infallibly.
The Bible came from The Catholic Church. The Church did not come from The Bible.
The Bible is a product & selection of Bishops of The Catholic Church.
If they were/are not infallible then you do not have an infallibly compiled Bible.

Some Protestant scholars (eg R. C. Sproule)agree that they have "A fallible list of infallible books" ...Which means you've got NO CERTAIN WORD OF GOD AT ALL.....because you have no certainty whether you have all (or any) of the right books in or out!
Early Protestants knew this problem.
Calvin resorted to saying that scripture was "self-authenticating"
This is exactly what Mormons (or Muslims) say The Book of Mormon (or Koran) does.
This does not remove the fallible ego, & bias of the reader, from the judgement.

(5) Sola Scriptura is unworkable intellectually
As at 2013 there were 45000 Protestant "denominations" growing at 2+/day.
They all have The Bible.
They all claim The Holy Spirit's guidance.
They all disagree what the Bible says.

(6)Sola Scriptura is unworkable practically...requiring
(i) the existence of the printing press,
(ii) the universal distribution of Bibles,
(iii) universal literacy,
(iv) the universal possession of scholarly support materials,
(v) the universal possession of adequate time for study,
(vi) universal adequate health, education & nutrition for study.

(7)Sola Scriptura is an actually an ANTI-Scriptural use of scripture...........

(a)See (2Tim 3:16)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and IS USEFUL for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
Paul tells Timothy, "All scripture (He meant the OT) is USEFUL"! .......NOT definitive, NOT all-encompassing. NOT all-sufficient!

(b)NB Paul says "All" scripture NOT "Only" scripture. Many misread this.
"ALL statements" are categorically different than "ONLY statements"
(c)Paul was referring to the Old Testament. The New was not written nor collated.

(d)If you make him mean "only" (The OT), then there could never be a New
Testament.

(e)It takes a higher authority than Paul to take his letter here, & say it is inspired.

(f)All Paul says in the proof-text is "The Old Testament is useful" (for reproofs etc.)
To get from there to Sola Scriptura is unprincipled & logically preposterous. It is a blatant mis-use of scripture to find a principle that is not there.

(8)Sola Scriptura is actually CONTRADICTED in The NT many times
Christ never wrote a book.
He never said "Go & write...."
He never built The Printing Press with his tools, nor wait for its invention to be born. Instead He sent out His Apostles with authority, they ordained others & successors.
That is The Catholic Church.
This was an ORAL TRADITION. Later SOME was written down
To underline this, Paul tells us many times it is... "The (Apostolic) TRADITION" which is THE WHOLE .....scripture is THE PART
*
Hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you (1 Cor 11:2)
"Hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15)
"Shun those acting not according to tradition" (2 Thess 3:6)
"No prophecy is a matter of private" interpretation (2 Pet 1:20)
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be
written. Amen." (John 21:25) ie Oral Tradition
"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” (Acts 20:35) Paul clearly refers to oral tradition.....since these words of Jesus are not in The Gospels
"the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)

(9)The Bible is manifestly NOT
(a) A Theology Textbook
(b) A Catechism
(c) A How-To(Start-a-Church)-Book.
Yet this is how Sola Scriiptura forces many Protestants treat it
In fact The Bible is The-Family-History & Reference-Library of The Catholic Church (Which is Judaism-Fulfilled or Post-Messianic-Judaism.)
That's why it is a Compendium, or Library, of many diverse writings..... Books, Letters, Songs, Proverbs, Poems, Histories & other genres, .....written over a vast span of time, with many, varied human authors.....which The Catholic Church selected as also Divinely Inspired.

(10)Sola Scriptura is never actually practised.
If the Bible was self-interpreting, once we had literacy, the printing press & cheap bibles we would need no teaching.
But the Protestant rebellion was totally based around "new teachers" for itchy ears, each with their own new religion & interpretation, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Smyth, Fox, Taize-Russell...& thousands more.

If the Bible was self-interpreting, they would have been out of a job, as would every Protestant Pastor.
Apparently it takes hours of sermons & studies each week to be able to interpret scripture for yourself!
The truth is Protestants are intensively taught to interpret according to new, man-made Protestant traditions. So it is "Bible +Teachers" not "Bible-Alone"

Timothy foresaw this......
(Tim 4:2-4) "For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths"
As did Peter....
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.” (2 Peter 3:15-17) Peter (The Rock) is "your secure position"

(11) Sola Scriptura can lead to Idolatrous Bibliolatry
The Bible itself says that "The Word of God" & "the fullness of revelation" is the person Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 1:1-3a; Colossians 1:15; John 14:9).
The Eternal Logos
Protestants routinely say "The Bible alone" is "The Word of God" & "the fullness of revelation"
Replacing God as the object of faith with a created thing (even a Divinely-created thing, like the Bible!) is the heart of idolatry.

THE "WORD-OF-GOD" is
(a)Jesus Christ.The Eternal LOGOS
(b)The Apostolic Traditions/Teachings (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15 & 3:6)
(c) The Bible....compiled circa 400AD by Councils of Catholic Bishops with Papal ratifications.

(12) Sola Scriptura serves Narcisism & Individualism
Books don't talk or interpret. The reader does this.
With the blessing of Sola Scriptura, the individual interpreter can find whatever he/she wants therein. And the promise of my "Holy Spirit" guide divinises my ego.
It is the perfect religion for modern American, Democratic, Individualistic, Consumerist, Relativistic culture. And often it is distilled down.
It is a breeding-ground for joingoistic, nutshell-gospels
They must be.... instant, easy-to-sell, handipak, takeout, cross-free, instant-SALVATION.
You can have..."Jesus-without-the-Cross" & have "A-cross-without-Jesus"!
The "nutshell"-Gospels, of different denominations, are "single-issue-Gospels" (Eternal-Security, Justification, Born-Again, Gifts-of-the-spirit, Rapture...) They may do, what they do, very well; but they are truncated distortions.
They ignore most of The Bible to hang a whole new religion on one or two verses.

There is not a solitary argument for sola scriptura
It is a baseless 16th Century assertion. It is just plucked from thin air, and repeated as a Mantra until it is so ingrained it is never questioned.
And when challenged about the baseless authority of Sola scriptura, the usual response is equally unsupported negative arguments..."Well, it CAN'T be the Catholic Church or The Pope".
Another question-begging assumption is that....
"The Bible is a Theological Textbook intended to answer every question."
The Bible obviously isn't designed or intended for this purpose; there is no basis for it; and it just doesn't work ....and yet still this blind, knee-jerk, reflex-thinking carries on.
This is the assumption behind all Protestant theologising ....that is never demonstrated.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I refer to the Reformation of the 16th century (Calvin, Luther et al). Many changes in the world and in thought have taken place - first there was the Enlightenment, which did not penetrate everywhere equally, but more so in Germany, and France. In it the deistic and athestic motifs from the classics writes Peter Gay, possessed the minds of the young leaders of the enlightenment with a very powerful spiritual force, effecting what can only be described as conversions - away from Christianity. Now we have postmodernism which is in many ways a rejection of the Enlightmentment optimism, and the myth of progress. Yet modernity is still with us. In the light of these changes should we get back into the writings and theology of the Reformation? Or is God doing something new today? Was the Reformation and its writings, theology only relevant to the situation of that age, or is it still relevant today. Are some aspects relevant and others not? Which are relevant for today?

I believe the reformation was necessary in a way because Roman Catholicism was in my opinion straying from the original teachings and was widely corrupted during that time. With the inquisitions and selling of indulgences, which I believe led to the doctrine of purgatory, it was important to get rid of the traditions and doctrines that are not supported by the scriptures. But I also believe that there were things that were lost from Catholicism that are relevant teachings and the idea of salvation by faith alone has been skewed and misunderstood by many into a teaching that good works and repentance isn’t necessary for salvation. Also the teaching of once saved always saved is another idea that is not scripturally supported. I believe to be saved we must stay the course and remain faithful to Christ. I wish I could elaborate more but I have to get to work now.