• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How revelant is the Reformation for us today?

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,022
✟117,598.00
Faith
Christian
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 be Idolatrous
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).
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.

(12) Sola Scriptura serves Narcisism & Indididualism
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.

You said,
(9)The Bible is manifestly NOT
(a) A Theology Textbook

2 Timothy 3:15-17 New King James Version (NKJV)
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


So most can hopefully see your way off base and wrong. Amazing how boldly arrogant people are in attempts to nullifying the scripture.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,856
8,381
Dallas
✟1,091,003.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

Which Catholic Church are you referring to?
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,819
1,644
67
Northern uk
✟667,074.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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?

If you are going back - then go back to the early church surely.
Read such as ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc some of whom knew and were taught by apostles.
And you see how far the reformation strayed!
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,199
1,368
✟728,245.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
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.


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

No but I have got that impression once or twice with certain people.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,199
1,368
✟728,245.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
On the subject of Sola Scripture, theologian Donald Bloesch has some perceptive comments. Some Protestant Fundamentalist churches think they have the same view of authority as the Reformers - the Bible alone, but in fact they don't. Bloesch writes: "For the church of the Reformation the supreme authority is the Word and the Spirit, the Bible illumined by the Spirit in the context of the worshipping community of faith."
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,856
8,381
Dallas
✟1,091,003.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you are going back - then go back to the early church surely.
Read such as ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr etc some of whom knew and were taught by apostles.
And you see how far the reformation strayed!

I think perhaps the only church that hasn’t strayed is the Orthodox Church.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,819
1,644
67
Northern uk
✟667,074.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think perhaps the only church that hasn’t strayed is the Orthodox Church.
They certainly have strayed - from the church at Rome, and primacy of Rome. Which is All there and evident in early fathers and councils.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,856
8,381
Dallas
✟1,091,003.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
They certainly have strayed - from the church at Rome, and primacy of Rome. Which is All there and evident in early fathers and councils.

Actually I think it’s the other way around. It was the Roman church that started making changes not the Orthodox Church. The filioque, priest celibacy, purgatory, the inquisitions are just a few examples. And of course papal supremacy.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Very relevant since most of the reforms are now embraced by the Roman Church than the Protestant.
I don't believe this is truth to be embraced.

Rather test everything, no matter who says it (even if an Apostle or an angel of light!) ....
as Yahweh's Word says.
If it is not in perfect harmony with all Scripture, and especially with the salvation in Jesus once for all delivered by Yahweh (God) ,
then do not accept something nor believe it. (most things published today, worldwide, by far, are false)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BNR32FAN
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,819
1,644
67
Northern uk
✟667,074.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Not so, but here is not the place to argue it.
And central to all that - at one time the eastern bishops who later split away, to become what is now the mixture ( not one separate church) of disparate autonomous and autocephalous churches that Now live under the banner "orthodox" all certainly did believe and profess the primacy of Rome, they said so in council. No surprises there... iraneus says so clearly, and many fathers since.

That is the fascinating thing of course:

You point out the clear meaning to protestants held by first century Jews of " bind and loose" ( i.e. Give definitive judgement on law and doctrine) Which is a power unarguably given separately to Peter alone, and the other disciples jointly, in 2 separate places in scripture (indeed pointbout all Christians rely on " bind and loose" for the inspiration of council decisions, without which there is no canon or creed, or judgement on important heresies ) and you say to Protestants: as I have many times before:

" then what do those verses mean to you if not the obvious - ? since its clear that is what it meant to first century Jews" ...

the Protestants then always go silent!! They have no alternative, there is no alternative. They just don't want it to mean the Catholic meaning of Peter given that power " to bind and loose," Ditto such as the power to " retain sins" etc.

As for Filioque - it is such an arcane concept, and so far beyond the power of man to know the fullness of God, so argue it either way, does anyone really care?
Jesus clearly sends the spirit to the disciples after ascension. That surely is good enough to make the argument against it a waste of time, even though it does not necessarily support it depending on your chosen meaning of " proceed", so now it is down on semantics of words.

And that is aproblem ever since .. many of the reformation arguments about salvation and faith arise from differences in assumed meanings of words





Actually I think it’s the other way around. It was the Roman church that started making changes not the Orthodox Church. The filioque, priest celibacy, purgatory, the inquisitions are just a few examples. And of course papal supremacy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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?

Why stop at the Reformation? We can go down the slippery slope until we hear the voice of John Lennon singing "Imagine". The Reformation is as relevant today as ever, the Five Solas are essential to Protestant Christianity. The moral of this story is, truth is timeless and has its origin in God. To say the Reformation is no longer relevant, is to say the truths the Reformers championed are no longer relevant, and this method can only lead to disaster. Some wise person once wrote, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". If you think moderns have come so far along intellectually and spiritually, try reading the Puritans. I think humanity as a whole is devolving.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,856
8,381
Dallas
✟1,091,003.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not so, but here is not the place to argue it.
And central to all that - at one time the eastern bishops who later split away, to become what is now the mixture ( not one separate church) of disparate autonomous and autocephalous churches that Now live under the banner "orthodox" all certainly did believe and profess the primacy of Rome, they said so in council. No surprises there... iraneus says so clearly, and many fathers since.

That is the fascinating thing of course:

You point out the clear meaning to protestants held by first century Jews of " bind and loose" ( i.e. Give definitive judgement on law and doctrine) Which is a power unarguably given separately to Peter alone, and the other disciples jointly, in 2 separate places in scripture (indeed pointbout all Christians rely on " bind and loose" for the inspiration of council decisions, without which there is no canon or creed, or judgement on important heresies ) and you say to Protestants: as I have many times before:

" then what do those verses mean to you if not the obvious - ? since its clear that is what it meant to first century Jews" ...

the Protestants then always go silent!! They have no alternative, there is no alternative. They just don't want it to mean the Catholic meaning of Peter given that power " to bind and loose," Ditto such as the power to " retain sins" etc.

As for Filioque - it is such an arcane concept, and so far beyond the power of man to know the fullness of God, so argue it either way, does anyone really care?
Jesus clearly sends the spirit to the disciples after ascension. That surely is good enough to make the argument against it a waste of time, even though it does not necessarily support it depending on your chosen meaning of " proceed", so now it is down on semantics of words.

And that is aproblem ever since .. many of the reformation arguments about salvation and faith arise from differences in assumed meanings of words

There are many misconceptions about the authority of the bishop of Rome. Your reference to Ignatius confirming the bishop of Rome’s authority I’m assuming is his statement from Adversus Haereses where he said do nothing without the bishop of Rome. This is hardly evidence of papal primacy regarding authority because the councils would not convene without all of the 5 bishops of the pentarchy present as we can clearly see in the council of Ephesus. As for the excommunication during the East West schism Rome stood completely alone because all of the other bishops of the pentarchy excommunicated Rome. Those being the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria and Jerusalem. So either the Rome excommunicated the entire church or the entire church excommunicated Rome. So we have two groups of people in the same church. Those who want to make changes (Rome) and those who want to keep things the way they’ve always been (all 4 of the other main churches). So then they decided to part ways. So which group actually left the original church? Is it the group who wanted to keep things the way they’ve always been or the group that wanted to make changes? Is it the majority of the church members that left the church or the minority? The evidence is pretty overwhelmingly stacked against Rome on this matter brother.
 
Upvote 0

ubicaritas

sinning boldly
Jul 22, 2017
1,842
1,071
Orlando
✟75,898.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
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.

Luther's reunion with the east would not have been politically feasable owing to the situation of the Holy Roman Empire, even if he desired it.

Luther did not view absolute unity in national churches as necessary. It had nothing to do with antipathy towards eastern Christians. Even today, Orthodox churches have national churches that are autocephalus. Luther's vision was similar, that each people were entitled to their own church.
 
Upvote 0

ubicaritas

sinning boldly
Jul 22, 2017
1,842
1,071
Orlando
✟75,898.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
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.

This shows an incomplete understanding of Luther's theological emphases during his lifetime. In particular you need to read his commentary on Genesis, before arriving at that conclusion. There's more to Luther than simply reading On the Bondage of the Will.

The Good News about Jesus Christ, not election, is the center of Lutheran theology and it always has been going back to Luther. We are not a church about hidden decrees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dms1972
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,819
1,644
67
Northern uk
✟667,074.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I notice you fail to answer the question at all on meaning of " bind and loose" from where authority of the pope and council derives.

You also fail to acknowledge the clear statement on " primacy of honour" acknowledged in council. The references are continuous if you look for them. Take the tome of Leo " there speaks Peter" - long before the schism, indeed all the way from iraneus to such as Augustine they quote the list of popes i.e. Bishops of Rome. Not surprising since that is the fulfilment of the holder of keys " called father" way back in Isaiah.

So the eastern bishops moved in. On whose authority is the question? I see the power of Peter to " bind and loose"
I do not see the power of a group of disparate bishops indeed the reverse " what he opens none can shut"

I repeat Protestants never have any sensible answers to what those verses mean, if not council or papal authority.


There are many misconceptions about the authority of the bishop of Rome. Your reference to Ignatius confirming the bishop of Rome’s authority I’m assuming is his statement from Adversus Haereses where he said do nothing without the bishop of Rome. This is hardly evidence of papal primacy regarding authority because the councils would not convene without all of the 5 bishops of the pentarchy present as we can clearly see in the council of Ephesus. As for the excommunication during the East West schism Rome stood completely alone because all of the other bishops of the pentarchy excommunicated Rome. Those being the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria and Jerusalem. So either the Rome excommunicated the entire church or the entire church excommunicated Rome. So we have two groups of people in the same church. Those who want to make changes (Rome) and those who want to keep things the way they’ve always been (all 4 of the other main churches). So then they decided to part ways. So which group actually left the original church? Is it the group who wanted to keep things the way they’ve always been or the group that wanted to make changes? Is it the majority of the church members that left the church or the minority? The evidence is pretty overwhelmingly stacked against Rome on this matter brother.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,856
8,381
Dallas
✟1,091,003.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I notice you fail to answer the question at all on meaning of " bind and loose" from where authority of the pope and council derives.

You also fail to acknowledge the clear statement on " primacy of honour" acknowledged in council. The references are continuous if you look for them. Take the tome of Leo " there speaks Peter" - long before the schism, indeed all the way from iraneus to such as Augustine they quote the list of popes i.e. Bishops of Rome. Not surprising since that is the fulfilment of the holder of keys " called father" way back in Isaiah.

So the eastern bishops moved in. On whose authority is the question? I see the power of Peter to " bind and loose"
I do not see the power of a group of disparate bishops indeed the reverse " what he opens none can shut"

I repeat Protestants never have any sensible answers to what those verses mean, if not council or papal authority.

What relevance does Peter have to the Roman church? Is it because he established the church in Rome? He established the church in Antioch before the church in Rome. So I don’t understand your point.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,856
8,381
Dallas
✟1,091,003.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I notice you fail to answer the question at all on meaning of " bind and loose" from where authority of the pope and council derives.

You also fail to acknowledge the clear statement on " primacy of honour" acknowledged in council. The references are continuous if you look for them. Take the tome of Leo " there speaks Peter" - long before the schism, indeed all the way from iraneus to such as Augustine they quote the list of popes i.e. Bishops of Rome. Not surprising since that is the fulfilment of the holder of keys " called father" way back in Isaiah.

So the eastern bishops moved in. On whose authority is the question? I see the power of Peter to " bind and loose"
I do not see the power of a group of disparate bishops indeed the reverse " what he opens none can shut"

I repeat Protestants never have any sensible answers to what those verses mean, if not council or papal authority.

Where does Peter pass on his authority to bind & loose? Was it passed on to the other popes? If so then what happened to the 99 popes who sanctioned the inquisitions for 686 years and why did the Catholic Church officially apologize for the actions of the men who sanctioned the inquisitions if they had the authority to bind & loose?
 
Upvote 0