Imputed righteousness

[PaulAckermann]

As much as people of your theological bias dislike Reformation theology...

I used to be a Protestant, in fact, I was a Protestant minister. And I was deep into Reformation theology. In fact, I taught that modern evangelicalism was anathema to Reformation theology. Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, so I doubt he had an emphasis of being "born anew" that "renews the mind" and "changes the heart". In fact the Reformers, especially Luther, were very negative in talking about the inner working of the heart because this may lead people into the "infused grace" mentality.

Luther himself complained in the end of his life of people living more loosely after receving the "truth of gospel" then when they were in error under Rome. I'll give you the exact guote when I have time. But by saying this, it shows that even Luther conceded that his doctrine led to anti-nomianism. The Reformers emphasised Christ's work on the cross to the neglect of Christ's work in the heart. Christ's work in the heart was consider drifting toward the Catholic way of thinking. Sure, much later they conceded that there is a working of the heart going on, but this was a response to the antonomianism their inputed righteousness doctrine led them into. Christ's work in our hearts was never emphasised for fear it would lead people back to Rome.


This is not to say that there was not a swing back to the interior life later on. This happened under Puritanism. Those who stood for Reformation theology would persecute the Puritans because they rightly saw Puritanism as a drift back to Rome wih the emphasis on infused grace.

Then later, John Wesley also saw the importance of infused grace. The there was Charles Finney, Billy Graham, etc. They would use terms such as "let Christ in your heart", "accept Christ in your heart", etc. The emphasis was on God's working in our hearts. In essense, this is infused grace, and would be anathema to the Reformers. And yet a Catholic would be very comfortable with talking about Christ in our hearts. In fact, asking Christ into your heart is very similar to spiritual communion, which the Catholic Church encourages us to to do whenever we are not able to receive the Eucharist.

The Reformation did not bring any spiritual revival. In fact, even Luther admitted that people were living worse under the Reformation doctrine. Revival came within Protestantism only when there was a drift back towards the Catholic doctrine of infused grace.

Evangelicalism in the aspect of soteriology is a hybrid of the Reformers and the Catholic Church. Evangelicalism is like the Reformers in that they believe a Christian can and should absolutely know he is saved and that salvation is without the sacraments. But Evangelicalism is more like Catholicism in its emphasis of God's grace working on our hearts.

But, on the other hand, when imputed righteousness is taught without sanctification, it leads to a form of dead Protestant orthodoxy. This has also happened in the past. Likewise, without the emphasis on personal holiness, antinomianism can result. The Reformers knew the dangers of this, which is why in every Protestant Confession there is always a call to holy living.

Like I said, I used to be deep in Reformation theology. And although I taught at that time that we are called to living a holy life, there was a huge BUT. The BUT was that even as Christians are still wretched, depraved, and in bondage to sin. This is part of Reformation theology. Romans chapter 7 is not a non-Christian, and is not even a carnal Christian. Romans 7, according to Refomation theology, is the spirit-filled Christian. So no matter how much we strive for the holy life, we still do the things we ought not to do, and the things we should do, we do not do. We still are wretches.

Contrast this with Catholic and Evangelical theology. Catholics would say that Romans 7 is the person living outside the grace of God - whether he be a non-Christian or a Christian in mortal sin. The Evangelical would say Romans 7 is the carnal Christian. The man in Romans 7 is saved, but is not living the way God has intended him to. Both the Catholic and the Evangelical would disagree with the Reformer, they both would say that Romans 7 is not the norm for the Christian life.

The Reformer would say we should strive for a holy life, but there is not much victory in this striving. So for the Reformer, the only important thing is wanting to live a holy life, but since we still so depraved and our righteousness are still as filthy rags, this is not much of a real possibity. Holiness is an unreachable ideal.

The Catholic and the Evangelical disagree. By the (infused) grace of God, we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. We can have victory over our sin. For the Evangelical, this victory is optional. A person can be saved without having victory over sin. For a Catholic, this victory is not optional, only he who overcomes will be saved. But both the Catholic and the Evangelical at least agree that we can have victory over sin and holiness is a very real possibility. Holiness is reachable.

 

[beloved57]

...scriptural or not?

Of course it is scriptural, the bible teaches it ! would not that be the teaching of 2cor 5: 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[ContraMundum]

I had no idea you had replied....

I used to be a Protestant, in fact, I was a Protestant minister.

*shrug*

Almost every Protestant minister I know who swims the Tiber never agreed with me in the first place.

In fact the Reformers, especially Luther, were very negative in talking about the inner working of the heart because this may lead people into the "infused grace" mentality.

Not sure about that-

"We believe, teach, and confess that, although the contrition that precedes, and the good works that follow, do not belong to the article of justification before God, yet one is not to imagine a faith of such a kind as can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5, 6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope." (Epitome, Art III, 11)

"For good works do not precede faith, neither does sanctification precede justification. But first faith is kindled in us in conversion by the Holy Ghost from the hearing of the Gospel. This lays hold of God's grace in Christ, by which the person is justified. Then, when the person is justified, he is also renewed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, from which renewal and sanctification the fruits of good works then follow. Et haec non ita divelluntur, quasi vera fides aliquando et aliquamdiu stare possit cum malo proposito, sed ordine causarum et effectuum, antecedentium et consequentium, ita distribuuntur. Manet enim, quod Lutherus recte dicit: Bene conveniunt et sunt connexa inseparabiliter fides et opera; sed sola fides est, quae apprehendit benedictionem sine operibus, et tamen nunquam est sola. That is: This should not be understood as though justification and renewal were sundered from one another in such a manner that a genuine faith sometimes could exist and continue for a time together with a wicked intention, but hereby only the order [of causes and effects, of antecedents and consequents] is indicated, how one precedes or succeeds the other. For what Luther has correctly said remains true nevertheless: Faith and good works well agree and fit together [are inseparably connected]; but it is faith alone, without works, which lays hold of the blessing; and yet it is never and at no time alone." (Solid Declaration)

Of course, there's an awful lot more I could cite, but I just wanted to bring your attention to it.

Luther himself complained in the end of his life of people living more loosely after receving the "truth of gospel" then when they were in error under Rome. I'll give you the exact guote when I have time.

Quoting Luther won't prove very much to my mind, because we're not talking about Luther's opinions, which often contradict each other (as anyone's would who had such a long writing career).

But by saying this, it shows that even Luther conceded that his doctrine led to anti-nomianism. The Reformers emphasised Christ's work on the cross to the neglect of Christ's work in the heart. Christ's work in the heart was consider drifting toward the Catholic way of thinking. Sure, much later they conceded that there is a working of the heart going on, but this was a response to the antonomianism their inputed righteousness doctrine led them into. Christ's work in our hearts was never emphasised for fear it would lead people back to Rome.

I think it's a matter of emphasis. The issue of the day was justification, not sanctification. It is, however, a mistake to say that sanctification and holiness were not discussed or that somehow personal holiness was discouraged.

It's like any theology- Newton's Law applies. It depends on the issues that were pertinent to the time.

Then later, John Wesley also saw the importance of infused grace. The there was Charles Finney, Billy Graham, etc. They would use terms such as "let Christ in your heart", "accept Christ in your heart", etc. The emphasis was on God's working in our hearts. In essense, this is infused grace, and would be anathema to the Reformers. And yet a Catholic would be very comfortable with talking about Christ in our hearts. In fact, asking Christ into your heart is very similar to spiritual communion, which the Catholic Church encourages us to to do whenever we are not able to receive the Eucharist.

I don't think I can agree with your interpretation of Church history here at all. First and foremost, all Reformation Confessions and the best authors of the era speak of conversion of the heart and receiving Christ by faith. If you want to call that "spiritual communion", that is up to you.

It could be noted that Catholic teachers of the 12th-16thC are relatively silent on recieving Christ in the heart. The idea that Catholics teach infused grace is not new, but interest in holiness was regenerated by a reaction to the Reformation.

You cite Wesley. You should remember that Wesley was converted and recieved Christ in his heart during a reading of Luther's preface to his commentary on Romans.

I think you misunderstand that the emphasis on justification was always about personal conversion in the Reformation era. Over and over we hear about the renewing of the heart by faith alone.

This is why I commented that imputed righteousness is but one thing that happens at conversion.

The Reformation did not bring any spiritual revival. In fact, even Luther admitted that people were living worse under the Reformation doctrine. Revival came within Protestantism only when there was a drift back towards the Catholic doctrine of infused grace.

I don't agree with your interpretation here either. In fact, I'd say it's a little biased, like mine. If entire cities devote themselves to trying to follow the scriptures, if people begin reading the scriptures in their homes, if a religious teaching exhalting Christ spreads like wildfire all over the world, then I'd say that's a spiritual revival. That, in a nutshell, is what happened during the Reformation and as a result of it.

Evangelicalism in the aspect of soteriology is a hybrid of the Reformers and the Catholic Church....etc etc

That statement follows logically from your previous assesment of history, and therefore, I don't agree with it at all. The best of Protestantism has always taught that conversion of the heart was by faith.

Like I said, I used to be deep in Reformation theology.

Not deep enough brother!

And although I taught at that time that we are called to living a holy life, there was a huge BUT. The BUT was that even as Christians are still wretched, depraved, and in bondage to sin. This is part of Reformation theology. Romans chapter 7 is not a non-Christian, and is not even a carnal Christian. Romans 7, according to Refomation theology, is the spirit-filled Christian. So no matter how much we strive for the holy life, we still do the things we ought not to do, and the things we should do, we do not do. We still are wretches.

Coming from a Roman Catholic, that's kind of ironic. There are elements in the Catholic Church that also teach this- the church was hardly united on the issue of Romans 7 during the Reformation era, and it's rarely tautgh now. For the record, I agree with Wesley on this- Rom 7 is the carnal Christian.

The Reformer would say we should strive for a holy life, but there is not much victory in this striving. So for the Reformer, the only important thing is wanting to live a holy life, but since we still so depraved and our righteousness are still as filthy rags, this is not much of a real possibity. Holiness is an unreachable ideal.

Well, on the topic of holiness, I don't agree with Luther or Calvin, but that's way off topic. However, there are Reformers who believed in victory in holiness, eg- the Anglican Reformers.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Of course, there's an awful lot more I could cite, but I just wanted to bring your attention to it.

I am not sure that the quotes your gave were from the actual Reformers themselves. But even if Reformers said things about holiness, that does not mean they gave holiness the proper emphasis it deserved.

I think it's a matter of emphasis. The issue of the day was justification, not sanctification. It is, however, a mistake to say that sanctification and holiness were not discussed or that somehow personal holiness was discouraged.

I am not saying they discouraged holiness. I am saying they neglected holiness.

This is the crux of the problem. To the Protestant, justification and sanctification are separate, justification comes first, and then there is sanctification afterward, which is a continuous process (and yet 1 Cor 6:11 lists being sanctified BEFORE being justified).

Because they are separate, there is a tendency to emphasise one over the other. When Protestants emphasize sanctification over justification, they fall into a holier-than-thou self-righteousness. I see this in a lot of Fundementalists (I was once one of them). When justification is emphasized over sanctification, you get cheap grace. I saw this in a lot of Christians not even able to get out of beds to go to church on Sundays (I see a lot of Catholics do this also, but the Catholics who are like this are only Catholics in name only. They do not believe in the Magistereum, they do not believe in confession before a priest, they do not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, they never pray the Rosary, they believe in justification by faith only, etc. They are basically Protestants). I also see cheap grace in liberal Protestant. Liberalism started in Protestantism in the 1850's. Catholicsm was able to withstand liberalism until the 1960's. The problem is that many Catholics were tired of their persecution and wanted to blend in with their liberal Protestant neighbors. Many priests in Protestant America have tried to rid our Catholic churches of anything that uniguely identifies us as Catholics.

But I digress. Sorry. The Catholic Church teaches that justification and sanctification are the same thing. So a Catholic who understands this is less likely to emphasize one over the other. He strives for holiness, because he knows that without holiness he will not see God. He knows that the degree he is holy is the degree he is justified. God declares him righteous because he is actually righteous. And yet this Catholic refrains from a holier-than-thou attitude, because he knows that this holier-than-thou attitude can disqualify him of heaven. A true Catholic knows that if he lacks love, he will not make it to heaven. And a true Catholic knows that without the grace of God, he is not capable of faith or love. And without faith and love, there is no heaven.

It's like any theology- Newton's Law applies. It depends on the issues that were pertinent to the time.

The problem is with our sinful natures. When the choice is left to us, we tend not to choose based is what it pertinent, but what is convenient. What we want and what we need are two different things.

You assume that the Reformers chose what was right for them at that time. Given our sinful natures, I think it is more like they chose the wrong emphasis because it was the easier road. And considering the lack of spiritual fruit (please read on), I think they definitely had the wrong emphasis.

First and foremost, all Reformation Confessions and the best authors of the era speak of conversion of the heart and receiving Christ by faith.

I myself cannot think of one instance where Luther, Calvin, etc referred to receiving Christ. Rather they just talked of having faith in Jesus.Could you give a quote where Luther or Calvin said we need to receive Christ into our hearts?

As a Protestant, I was greatly influenced by Present Truth (not Plain Truth). This magazine was dedicated to bringing Reformation theology back to modern Evangelicalism. Here are some quotes from an article called "The False Gospel of the New Birth":


The false gospel of the new birth" imagines that the new birth refers primarily to what happens in the believer and that this is the greatest news in the world.2 This is classical Roman Catholicism.



For the Reformers, being born again was neither the gospel nor that which justifies the believer unto life eternal. Being born again was the fruit of the gospel. It was an effect of the gospel. But Rome either equated the new birth with the gospel of Christ's righteousness or regarded the new birth as that work which justifies a person before God. Many modern-day evangelicals also equate gospel and new birth. "Ye must be born again" is their gospel. This is not Protestant.


http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XXXVII/37-4.htm


I think this magazine if very scholarly, but later I realized it was built on wrong assumption. It was very scholarly in showing that modern evangelicalism, with its emphasis on inner conversion has more in common with Catholicsm than with the Reformers. It wrong assumption, from my perpective now, is assuming that the Reformers had it right and the Catholic and evangelicals have it wrong. But still this shows that even some Protestant scholars see evangelicalism is a drift back toward Rome.

It could be noted that Catholic teachers of the 12th-16thC are relatively silent on recieving Christ in the heart.

Read The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis in the 14th century. I think you will be surprised. Also, what about St. Francis of Assisi, or St Cathrine of Seinne?

The idea that Catholics teach infused grace is not new, but interest in holiness was regenerated by a reaction to the Reformation.

I agree that the Catholic Church was corrupt at that time. So was Israel corrupt at times in the Old Testament, and yet Israel still remained chosen by God and God would always raise men and women to bring Israel back to God. But never, no matter how corrupt Israel was, did the prophets in OT tell the people that they should leave Israel and start their own country. The Reformers lacked patience. God always raised saints to bring the Church back to God. Maybe that was God's plan for the Reformers, but the Reformers, it seems to me, stepped out in the flesh instead of staying in step with God. A Reformer is one who reforms the Church. These "Reformers" did nothing like this at all. They rebelled against the Church, they did not reform the Church.

True reformers are Francis of Assis, Francis deSales, Ignatius Loyola, Teresa deAvila, John of the Cross. These people stayed within the Church, but by the power of God they changed the Church from the inside. They were leaders, but yet they still submitted. They were bold enough to lead, but humble enough to still submit to their elders, even when the elders were evil. St. John of the Cross was imprisoned by his bishop. St. Teresa de Avila faced the Inquisition. But in spite of this they still submitted to their elders and trusted God. And they prevailed. It was far more difficult than just breaking away from the Church. It involved far more suffering. But they followed the way of the Cross.

I think you misunderstand that the emphasis on justification was always about personal conversion in the Reformation era. Over and over we hear about the renewing of the heart by faith alone.

Could you give me some quotes from the original Reformers, not from their followers?

if people begin reading the scriptures in their homes, if a religious teaching exhalting Christ spreads like wildfire all over the world, then I'd say that's a spiritual revival. That, in a nutshell, is what happened during the Reformation and as a result of it.

First of all, people read more of the scriptures because of the invention of the printing press. Before that, a copy of the Bible was hand-made. It cost 3 years wages to own a Bible. The Reformation had little to do with people reading more of the Bible, it was technology.

Also, I do not think putting Anabaptists in burlap bags amd throwing them into the river does much for exalting Christ. In fact, I do not know of another occurrence of a spiritual revival where there was so much bloodshed. Don't get me wrong. I admit that Catholics also were violent at that that time. But at least the leaders of the Catholic Reformation (Francis deSales, Ignatius Loyola, Teresa deAvila, John of the Cross, etc) were against the violence. In contrast, the leaders of the Protestant Reformation encouraged the bloodshed. I would encourage you to read and compare the lives and teachings of the Catholic Refomers and the Protestant Reformers. I especially would like to encurage you to read Table Talk by Martin Luther. In there, Luther swore like a sailor. He encouraged Christians to kill Jews. He said that if he had sex with a harlot 100 times a times that he would still go to heaven because he was justified by faith alone. Read this and ask yourself if this is the kind of man God would use to bring a spritual revival.

The best of Protestantism has always taught that conversion of the heart was by faith.

I agree. But the Reformation was not the best of Protestantism, it was actually the worst. The best of Protestantism is now, and that is because it is closer to Rome's teaching on infused grace than ever before.

However, there are Reformers who believed in victory in holiness, eg- the Anglican Reformers.

You mean King Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell???? King Henry had a mistress and wanted an annullment. The pope took too long to respond for him (the pope should has responded immediately - no!). So King Henry VIII declared himself, a secular ruler, to be the supreme ruler of the Church of England. When Thomas More and John Fisher refused to sign the document that said that the King rule the Church, Henry VIII had them beheaded. Cromwell also worked on these executions.

I really don't see much holiness here. Now, as I said before. Catholics are also guilty of bloodshed. But at least the leaders of the Catholic Reformation were genuinely holy people. I cannot see even one of the original Protestant Reformers as being a holy man of God - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, King Henry VIII, Oliver Cromwell, Melancthon, Thomas Cranmer. And I cannot think of another time that God brought a spritual revival out of men who were themselves not holy.

 

[ContraMundum]

I am not sure that the quotes your gave were from the actual Reformers themselves.

Yeah, they were. There were hundreds of Reformers, not just a few guys with big names in history. Lots of signatories, pastors, thinkers and the like.

Did you know that nore prayer and fasting went into the Westminster Confession than any of the Ecumenical Councils?

Did you know there were more signatories to the Book of Concord than the ancient councils?

Did you know that Calvin didn't write either of them and Luther's contribution was not originally intended for them?

But even if Reformers said things about holiness, that does not mean they gave holiness the proper emphasis it deserved.

Right- and the Church of Rome did not give justification the proper emphasis it deserved, eh?

Because they are separate, there is a tendency to emphasise one over the other. When Protestants emphasize sanctification over justification, they fall into a holier-than-thou self-righteousness. I see this in a lot of Fundementalists (I was once one of them).

O...k then.

..not that you'd be like that now, would you?

No, no.....

But I digress. Sorry.

You're right. I've chosen to ignore the digression because it's just too.....ummm, subjective and derogatory, and frankly, I gave up on those arguments years ago.

You assume that the Reformers chose what was right for them at that time. Given our sinful natures, I think it is more like they chose the wrong emphasis because it was the easier road. And considering the lack of spiritual fruit (please read on), I think they definitely had the wrong emphasis.

Eh. *shrugs*

I see no evidence for such speculation.

I myself cannot think of one instance where Luther, Calvin, etc referred to receiving Christ. Rather they just talked of having faith in Jesus.Could you give a quote where Luther or Calvin said we need to receive Christ into our hearts?

Can I be bothered?

Ummm....no.

They used different terms to describe the same thing. Simple really. Anyone with even a small knowledge of Reformation writings knows this. Geez...just read Luther's preface to Romans.

Read The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis in the 14th century. I think you will be surprised. Also, what about St. Francis of Assisi, or St Cathrine of Seinne?

Read them all. All good. No problem with good devotional teachings. Although I think Catherine of Siena was a bit weird.

The Reformers lacked patience. God always raised saints to bring the Church back to God. Maybe that was God's plan for the Reformers, but the Reformers, it seems to me, stepped out in the flesh instead of staying in step with God.

Yeah, right....they were really, really bad compared to the Catholics of the day, weren't they? Oh yeah...these guys were pure evil. It was really Protestants in disguise as Catholics that made the Jews wear patches, burnt people at the stake, slaughtered the people on St Bart's Day, ordered Crusades and fought in them and tortured for Christ, right? Yeah...now I see....boy, I'd better enrol in the RCIA class right now...and get into liberal theology!

A Reformer is one who reforms the Church. These "Reformers" did nothing like this at all. They rebelled against the Church, they did not reform the Church.

Oh goodness gracious.

Could you give me some quotes from the original Reformers, not from their followers?

Define "original Reformers" and prove to me that they are the only valid or heeded voice of the Reformation era.

I would encourage you to read and compare the lives and teachings of the Catholic Refomers and the Protestant Reformers. I especially would like to encurage you to read Table Talk by Martin Luther. In there, Luther swore like a sailor. He encouraged Christians to kill Jews. He said that if he had sex with a harlot 100 times a times that he would still go to heaven because he was justified by faith alone. Read this and ask yourself if this is the kind of man God would use to bring a spritual revival.

Oh goodness gracious.
I can't believe there are people trying to push this tired old nonsense (read: largely heresay) on to me.

Lord save me from fundies.

You mean King Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell????

No, obviously NOT.

Those two political figures were not church Reformers.

Do you actually know anything about the English Reformation??????????????

I cannot see even one of the original Protestant Reformers as being a holy man of God - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, King Henry VIII, Oliver Cromwell, Melancthon, Thomas Cranmer.

OK...whatever. They'll all unholy. Melancthon and Cranmer were real scoundrels. LOL!

Henry XIII and Oliver Cromwell were "Reformers" LOL.

...oh...and did I mention that Benedict XVI was really a chipmonk dressed in a rubber suit designed to look like a man? He's good with theology for a chipmonk, don't you think?

And I cannot think of another time that God brought a spritual revival out of men who were themselves not holy.

Well, maybe, just maybe, you're wrong about their character? A little bit of hyperbole mixed with a bit of smear and character assasination, topped with a lovely sauce prepared by biased sources, all smothered in boorish rhetoric supplied by a corrupt apologetic machine? Hello?

 

[PaulAckermann]

Yeah, they were. There were hundreds of Reformers, not just a few guys with big names in history. Lots of signatories, pastors, thinkers and the like.

I think we are miscommunicating here. What I mean by Reformers, I mean the one or ones who started the ball rolling. Obvoiusly, once the ball was rolling, other picked up the ball and ran with it.

What I am concerned about is the very first few - Luther defintely, and Calvin, and maybe King Henry VIII and Zingli. Did THESE peoiple have a proper view of holiness.

Did you know that nore prayer and fasting went into the Westminster Confession than any of the Ecumenical Councils?

Did you know there were more signatories to the Book of Concord than the ancient councils?

Did you know that Calvin didn't write either of them and Luther's contribution was not originally intended for them?

Your last question is the point I am making. By the grace of God, after Luther and Calvin, the Protestants came to their senses and moved back to the Catholc emphasis of holiness. What is telling is that Luther and Calvin, the ones who start the Reformation, had no part in this.

They used different terms to describe the same thing. Simple really. Anyone with even a small knowledge of Reformation writings knows this. Geez...just read Luther's preface to Romans.

I did read it. And I also read Table Talk, which shows the real Luther

Yeah, right....they were really, really bad compared to the Catholics of the day, weren't they? Oh yeah...these guys were pure evil. It was really Protestants in disguise as Catholics that made the Jews wear patches, burnt people at the stake, slaughtered the people on St Bart's Day, ordered Crusades and fought in them and tortured for Christ, right?

Nazi Germans made Jews wear patches. Germany is a Protestant country. In Germany, Luther is idolized. They have statues of Luther (BTW, I thought Protestants were against graven images). Adolf Hitler praised Luther for being a great man in Mein Kamph.

As I said before, Catholics have committed atrocities, just like Protestants. But the leaders of the Catholic Reformation was against them. The leader of the Protestant Reformation endorsed them.

The Crusades started as a defensive measure. Muslims were bent on taking over Europe, the Crusades were called to stopped them. If it was not for the Crusades, Islam would have been the official religion of Europe, and we would all be on a Muslim forum now. Modern scholarship now says that our impression of the Inquisition is wrong and tainted by an anti-Catholic bias. The same goes for St Bart's massacre.

Yeah...now I see....boy, I'd better enrol in the RCIA class right now...and get into liberal theology!

Actually, the liberals see Luther as the forrunner of liberalism. Liberals accept some parts of the Bible but arbitrarily reject what does not fit with their liberal doctrine. They learned this from Luther. Luther rejected James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Revelation because they did not fit his doctrine of justification by faith alone. It is a as mark of liberalism to outright reject certain parts of the Bible. This is what Luther did. Conservativism is accepting all the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Luther did not do this.

Martin Luther taught that each person can arrive at the truth in scriptures. Liberals took this idea and ran with it. They just took one more step. They said that each person can arrive truth without the need of scripture. Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura led to many different interpretations of the Bible. We now have over 25,000 different denominations based on different interpretations of the Bible. Who has the right interpretation. No one knows for sure. So Protestants start saying that all these different interpretation of the Bible really does not matter - all that matter is Jesus. This idea gave birth to liberalism It does not matter you believe as long as you have Jesus as Lord. What does it mean that Jesus is Lord? Again, to you liberal, that does not matter. As long as you have Jesus as Lord from your own perspective of what that means, that is OK. Absolute truth does not matter.

From AD 300 to 1500, Christendom believed in absolute truth. Abortion was not even debated. Neither was homosexuality. The Bible was assumed to be God's infallible Word. I am not saying that everyone was a saint, but for 1,000 years people knew right from wrong. Then came Luther, and only a few centuries afterward everything that was traditionally held is questioned - sin, abortion, homosexuality, relativism. For 1,000 years, Christians were protected from this. But after Luther came, each person became his own pope and interpreted the Bible on his own. Soon after this the Enlightenment happened. Again, it is the elevation of the individual against authority, this mean no need for even the Bible. Later, liberalism started in the 1800's by German theologians. It is interesting that liberalism came out of Germany, where Luther is idolized. Everything bad has come Germany (even I have German descent). The Reformation, liberalism, KultureKamph, Naziism - all bad.

Define "original Reformers" and prove to me that they are the only valid or heeded voice of the Reformation era.

Look at it this way. Jesus started Christianity. One can possibly argue that the apostles were also involved in its inception. As long as the aposles are alive, this era is called the apostlofic era. The apostolic era is over once the last apostle died.

In the same way, Protestantism started with certain people, these are the reformers. Once these Reformers are dea, is is no longer the Reformation era, Any vioce after that is from the post-Reformation era.

Lord save me from fundies.

Fundies are notoriously anti-Catholic. Your salvation from fundementalism is the Catholic Church.

Those two political figures were not church Reformers.

Do you actually know anything about the English Reformation??????????????

The Reformation in England was motivated by politics and hormones. This is why the Reformers in England were political figures. When King Henry VIII declared himself to be the leader of the Church of England, there was no distinction between politics and religion there.

OK...whatever. They'll all unholy. Melancthon and Cranmer were real scoundrels. LOL!

King Phillip married someone without even divorcing is previous wife. His new bride would not go along with this unless the "original Reformers" approved of it. King Phillip got Luther and Melancthon to approve of it, which they did. They approved of this out of political expediency, not out of religious conviction. So I cannot say that Melancthon was a holy man. A holy man of God was St Thomas More, who gave up his job and his head because he would not recognize King Henry VIII as the head of the Catholic Church. This was not protested by Cranmer - agin, polical expediency. Better to be the new archbishop then to lose your head. When Cranmer was executed executed, they found on his body to notes - one condemning the Protestant Reformation and another defending it. Again, political expediency. Whatever would save Kramner, he was will to do. This is why the English Reformation was filled withn political leaders. It was all about politics.

...oh...and did I mention that Benedict XVI was really a chipmonk dressed in a rubber suit designed to look like a man? He's good with theology for a chipmonk, don't you think?

I thought I read in the rules in this forum about maintaining Christian charity in our replies.

Well, maybe, just maybe, you're wrong about their character? A little bit of hyperbole mixed with a bit of smear and character assasination, topped with a lovely sauce prepared by biased sources, all smothered in boorish rhetoric supplied by a corrupt apologetic machine? Hello?

I have only given facts. Now, in spite of these facts, I am in no way saying they are burning in hell. Neiher am I saying the Reformers were evil. I am saying that the Reformers did and said bad things, so they could not be holy men of God. I myself am not a holy man of God. Maybe one day I will, but so far I fall far short.

I am saying that the Reformers were not holy. I am not saying that they were evil. Holy people do not advocate violence, whether Catholic or Protestant. They are many Catholic figues with bloddy sword who will never be canoized saints. It does not mean that they are going to hell. But I do not admire their spirituality. And these are not the knid od men God use to bring a spiritual revival.

 

[ContraMundum]

I think we are miscommunicating here. What I mean by Reformers, I mean the one or ones who started the ball rolling. Obvoiusly, once the ball was rolling, other picked up the ball and ran with it.

Well, I don't consider the "Reformers" to be contained to two or three noted theologians.

What I am concerned about is the very first few - Luther defintely, and Calvin, and maybe King Henry VIII and Zingli. Did THESE peoiple have a proper view of holiness.

Start a thread on it. This thread is about imputed righteousness.

Your last question is the point I am making. By the grace of God, after Luther and Calvin, the Protestants came to their senses and moved back to the Catholc emphasis of holiness. What is telling is that Luther and Calvin, the ones who start the Reformation, had no part in this.

I don't agree. I think there has always been a continuum in all theology.

I did read it. And I also read Table Talk, which shows the real Luther

It does?

Nazi Germans made Jews wear patches. Germany is a Protestant country. In Germany, Luther is idolized. They have statues of Luther (BTW, I thought Protestants were against graven images). Adolf Hitler praised Luther for being a great man in Mein Kamph.

No, no, no. I meant the Medieval Catholics that started the trend of making Jewish people wear patches. Hitler copied them.

Don't they teach about that over at Catholic Answers?

As I said before, Catholics have committed atrocities, just like Protestants. But the leaders of the Catholic Reformation was against them. The leader of the Protestant Reformation endorsed them.

Shall we discuss the decrees and orders of Popes and Bishops alike associated with atrocities and compare them with the relative inaction of the Reformers?

I'm game if you are.....start a thread about it. I'll "see your Severtus" and "raise you a Ridley, Cranmer and a couple of Jewish deportations", to use poker parlance.

The Crusades started as a defensive measure. Muslims were bent on taking over Europe, the Crusades were called to stopped them. If it was not for the Crusades, Islam would have been the official religion of Europe, and we would all be on a Muslim forum now. Modern scholarship now says that our impression of the Inquisition is wrong and tainted by an anti-Catholic bias. The same goes for St Bart's massacre.

Heard it all before. I agree for the cause of the Crusades, but not the method. Slaying Jews and the Orthodox as well as innocent people while stealing their treasures is not a good way to wage any war. Yet- the Popes and bishops alike advocated or turned a blind eye to it.

As for the "inquisition" apologetic version 1.22a you can have that- it's rubbish. Likewise the "St Barts was really _____ (fill in the blank), again, it's largely rubbish. Torture is not Christian. Perhaps we could agree on that. We should distribute "WWJT" (Who Would Jesus Torture) bracelets to make our point, eh?

Actually, the liberals see Luther as the forrunner of liberalism. Liberals accept some parts of the Bible but arbitrarily reject what does not fit with their liberal doctrine. They learned this from Luther. Luther rejected James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Revelation because they did not fit his doctrine of justification by faith alone. It is a as mark of liberalism to outright reject certain parts of the Bible. This is what Luther did. Conservativism is accepting all the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Luther did not do this.

You do realise that conservatives also claim Luther as their own. (and of course the idea that he rejected books of the Bible has been well refuted so often on this forum it's really, really, boring). Everybody claims Luther and makes him in the image they want him to be. I just read his doctrines, and eat the meat and spit out the bones.

From AD 300 to 1500, Christendom believed in absolute truth.

Christendom believed in what it believed was the truth, of course. No news flash here.

The Bible was assumed to be God's infallible Word. I am not saying that everyone was a saint, but for 1,000 years people knew right from wrong. Then came Luther, and only a few centuries afterward everything that was traditionally held is questioned - sin, abortion, homosexuality, relativism.

That is so bad it barely deserves an answer. You have completely made a dog's breakfast of this. I know you can't possibly be that forgetful of the church history you must have read at some point in your life.

Luther defended the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture above all else. A child knows this.

Likewise, much of what you claim as "not debated", was in fact, debated. The reason the church decided on matters is because they were debated, right? The church doesn't decide on matters that aren't being asked of it, unless they are clear from the Word of God and can be stated ipso facto.

Likewise, would you care to discuss the contraditions of teachers in the church between 300-1500AD? I think your whole myth of the "perfect, unified" church would fall down around your ears. Just take one issue, say, the date of Easter or even icons and then we can talk about the church that always knew what was "right and wrong", eh? Remember, the Great Schism was before 1517.

...or don't they teach that at Catholic Answers either?

Fundies are notoriously anti-Catholic. Your salvation from fundementalism is the Catholic Church.

No, the worst fundies I know are Catholic converts. Terribly dogmatic and very, very strange in their world view. I pray for their repentance and that their church could be delivered from them. Cradle Catholics are far more balanced. Thank the Lord for them.

Sorry, but it is largely accepted that fundamentalism is not contained to 20thC Protestantism.

The Reformation in England was motivated by politics and hormones. This is why the Reformers in England were political figures. When King Henry VIII declared himself to be the leader of the Church of England, there was no distinction between politics and religion there.

Nonsense. There were many, many religious Reformers before the political ones. Every heard of Wycliffe or perhaps Tyndale? Patrick Hamilton? Then while all the political stuff was going on, religious stuff happened too- you've heard of the better Anglican divines, yes?

FYI- Henry died teaching and believing the dogmas of Roman Catholicism, and every schoolboy (outside of the US anyway) knows that Henry had the same right of "annulment" as Phillip of Spain, but Phillip was the Pope's poster boy and Henry wasn't- so, Henry's demands were not unusual for his era and only those who kissed enough Papal backside got the unscriptural goodies from the deformed system that was medieval Popery. Henry just wanted what his Spanish rival had- equal treatment from the unscriptural system.

To say that Henry is a religious reformer is not only illogical it is not factual. Henry's title "defender of the faith" was given to him by Papa for "refuting" Luther.

This was not protested by Cranmer - agin, polical expediency.

Why would Cramner protest against something he agreed with? That's just silly. Cranmer rejected Papal supremacy at the point. How can you blame him for standing on his convictions and yet not blame More for standing on his? Hello?

Better to be the new archbishop then to lose your head. When Cranmer was executed executed, they found on his body to notes - one condemning the Protestant Reformation and another defending it.

Cranmer was burnt at the stake- were the notes made of asbestos or something? LOL (I think you will find that you may have muddied the facts a bit- Cranmer recanted in the flames)

Why did Cranmer recant and then retract his recantation? Simple- he was an old man in his 60's being tortured. THe was so old and friail he was barely mobile before they started to torture him. Tell you what- if you think that makes him "unholy" than I say that kind of opinion is unholy and demonic. I say the people that ordered his torture to extract a false confession were the unholy ones- torture is something he never did nor ever wanted to do to others. Give me a break. Cranmer is the victim here....

I have only given facts. Now, in spite of these facts, I am in no way saying they are burning in hell. Neiher am I saying the Reformers were evil. I am saying that the Reformers did and said bad things, so they could not be holy men of God. I myself am not a holy man of God. Maybe one day I will, but so far I fall far short.

I am saying that the Reformers were not holy. I am not saying that they were evil. Holy people do not advocate violence, whether Catholic or Protestant. They are many Catholic figues with bloddy sword who will never be canoized saints. It does not mean that they are going to hell. But I do not admire their spirituality. And these are not the knid od men God use to bring a spiritual revival.

It's all double talk to me.

Considering the facts have not been correct, the presentation was preaching and without any new or even interesting perspective, and the bias so bad it makes the JW's look open-minded, I'd say you've failed utterly to convince me of anything you've had to say.

NOW--- about imputed righteousness- Anybody?

 

[PaulAckermann]

Well, I don't consider the "Reformers" to be contained to two or three noted theologians.

Fine. Then at what point is a theologian no longer considered a "Reformer"?

Start a thread on it. This thread is about imputed righteousness.

You were the one who asked me what I defined as an original Reformer. If is off the subject, you were the one who lead us down that road.

I don't agree. I think there has always been a continuum in all theology.
[quotes]
So there is a continuum between Reform theology and liberal Protestant theology?

No, no, no. I meant the Medieval Catholics that started the trend of making Jewish people wear patches. Hitler copied them.
Don't they teach about that over at Catholic Answers?

No guess not. Please enligten me with actual actual documentation. If you cannot provide any documentation, then it must be one of those urnan legends. I am not saying that this did happen. I don't know until you have provided the documentation. Maybe you should start another thread?

Shall we discuss the decrees and orders of Popes and Bishops alike associated with atrocities and compare them with the relative inaction of the Reformers?

I read for myself the decrees of Popes condemning the atrrocities, but I have never read of decrees by the Popes advocating atrocities. Any decrees by Bishops are meaningless. Bishop are fallible. The heretic Arius was a Bishop. The Reformers were not just guility of inaction but participation. If you want me to, I can provide documentation. Oh yes, I forgot. This thread is about imputed righteousness.

Heard it all before. I agree for the cause of the Crusades, but not the method. Slaying Jews and the Orthodox as well as innocent people while stealing their treasures is not a good way to wage any war. Yet- the Popes and bishops alike advocated or turned a blind eye to it.

Not at all. The Pope issued a decree condemning thos actions. I would provide the doc, but this tread is about imputed righteousness.

As for the "inquisition" apologetic version 1.22a you can have that- it's rubbish. Likewise the "St Barts was really _____ (fill in the blank), again, it's largely rubbish. Torture is not Christian. Perhaps we could agree on that. We should distribute "WWJT" (Who Would Jesus Torture) bracelets to make our point, eh?

I would respond but since this thread is about imputed righteousness. Suffice it to say that I do not want to be acced of going off-topic. Please start another thread.

You do realise that conservatives also claim Luther as their own. (and of course the idea that he rejected books of the Bible has been well refuted so often on this forum it's really, really, boring). Everybody claims Luther and makes him in the image they want him to be. I just read his doctrines, and eat the meat and spit out the bones.

I realize that. Luther was full of contradictions. He can say one thing conservative and the next minutes something very liberal. I am not sure that he was all that emotionally stable. The problem is that what is meat to you is bome to the liberal. What he spits out the lineral chews. Someti

Luther defended the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture above all else. A child knows this.

This is where Luther was a bundle of contradictions. Sure, he defended the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. But he placed himself above scripture when he said that James was an "epistle of straw", and reject any scripture that did not agree with him.

Likewise, would you care to discuss the contraditions of teachers in the church between 300-1500AD? I think your whole myth of the "perfect, unified" church would fall down around your ears.

You are misunderstandig the Catholic faith. There is a misconception that the Magisterium dictates to us what we should believe on every detail. That is not true. There is room for disgreements among Catholics. For instance, the Magisterium has not yet officially declare a doctrine about limbo. Catholic are free to believe or disbelieve in limbo. Catholics are free to discuss this and takes sides. It does not destroy our unity. There is freedom to think on our own. But when the disagreement threaten the unity, that is when the Magisterium steps in and makes a decision. So Catholic has disgareements just as Protestants do. But unlike Catholics, Protestants have no judge to decide the issue when the disgreement threatens unity. This is why there are about seven new denomination a week with Protestantism.

Just take one issue, say, the date of Easter or even icons and then we can talk about the church that always knew what was "right and wrong", eh? Remember, the Great Schism was before 1517.

So what? The Eastern church disagreed with the Pope about Easter, icons, filoloque, and papal infaillibity, and they broke off from the Catholic Church. This does not disprove the Catholic Church any more than the Arian split, or the Nestorian split, or even the Protestant split disproves the Catholic Church. God has made us with a free will. Anyone is free to split off from the Church. That action in itself does not disprove the validity of the Catholic Church anymore than the Jews rejecting Jesus is the first century disproves the validity of Christ.

No, the worst fundies I know are Catholic converts. Terribly dogmatic and very, very strange in their world view. I pray for their repentance and that their church could be delivered from them. Cradle Catholics are far more balanced. Thank the Lord for them.

You mean like Ted Kennedy? You mean Catholics who believe the abortion is OK and don't go to church on Sunday?

Sorry, but it is largely accepted that fundamentalism is not contained to 20thC Protestantism.

Fundematalism started by a band of Protestants coming up with the Fundementals of the Faith. There may be orthodox or traditional Catholics, but a fundementalist Catholic is a misnomer.

There were many, many religious Reformers before the political ones. Every heard of Wycliffe or perhaps Tyndale? Patrick Hamilton? Then while all the political stuff was going on, religious stuff happened too- you've heard of the better Anglican divines, yes?

Wycliff and Tyndale were pre-Reformation. I did't hear of Hamiton. Were the Anglican Divines a rock group?

FYI- Henry died teaching and believing the dogmas of Roman Catholicism, and every schoolboy (outside of the US anyway) knows that Henry had the same right of "annulment" as Phillip of Spain, but Phillip was the Pope's poster boy and Henry wasn't- so, Henry's demands were not unusual for his era and only those who kissed enough Papal backside got the unscriptural goodies from the deformed system that was medieval Popery. Henry just wanted what his Spanish rival had- equal treatment from the unscriptural system.

Phillip of Spain came much later - with a different pope. Charles was was the ruler at that time.

To say that Henry is a religious reformer is not only illogical it is not factual. Henry's title "defender of the faith" was given to him by Papa for "refuting" Luther.

Henry declared himself as the leader of the Church, so he was a religious reformer.

Why would Cramner protest against something he agreed with? That's just silly. Cranmer rejected Papal supremacy at the point. How can you blame him for standing on his convictions and yet not blame More for standing on his? Hello?

Because More did not kill anyone. He was will to die for his conviction. If Cranmer was a man of God, he would have stood at More's side in his right to believe even though Cranmer may disagree in what he believed. We are not radical Muslims, converting people by the sword.

Why did Cranmer recant and then retract his recantation? Simple- he was an old man in his 60's being tortured. THe was so old and friail he was barely mobile before they started to torture him. Tell you what- if you think that makes him "unholy" than I say that kind of opinion is unholy and demonic. I say the people that ordered his torture to extract a false confession were the unholy ones- torture is something he never did nor ever wanted to do to others. Give me a break. Cranmer is the victim here....

I said is not a holy man, I never said he was unholy. I agree that the ones who ordered his execution were not holy. But you contract, why was it wrong to torture Kranmer but not More?

Considering the facts have not been correct, the presentation was preaching and without any new or even interesting perspective, and the bias so bad it makes the JW's look open-minded, I'd say you've failed utterly to convince me of anything you've had to say.

You also failed to convince me of anything, too.

 

[ContraMundum]

I'll answer your questions, Paul, but nothing more unless you want to talk soteriology.

Fine. Then at what point is a theologian no longer considered a "Reformer"?

I refer, in the context of this "discussion", to the men who took part in theological reform before the 17thC.

So there is a continuum between Reform theology and liberal Protestant theology?

Of course.

Re: The Jews and Papal anti-semitism: No guess not. Please enligten me with actual actual documentation. If you cannot provide any documentation, then it must be one of those urnan legends. I am not saying that this did happen. I don't know until you have provided the documentation. Maybe you should start another thread?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-c68.html

http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/yellowstar.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge (This one has pics)

It happened.

I read for myself the decrees of Popes condemning the atrrocities, but I have never read of decrees by the Popes advocating atrocities. Any decrees by Bishops are meaningless. Bishop are fallible. The heretic Arius was a Bishop. The Reformers were not just guility of inaction but participation. If you want me to, I can provide documentation. Oh yes, I forgot. This thread is about imputed righteousness.

Of course there were Popes who spoke against the atrocities, but there were also Popes who advocated them. Surely you won't deny that- shall we look at the lives of Innocent III, John XII, Gregory XII, Alexander VI, Sixtus IV and others?

As for the Reformers- what atrocities did they advocate? Luther and the peasants revolt? Did the princes not do what they would normally do anyway? Luther and his anti-semitism? That was hideous, but it was the modus of the day anyway and the whole church must repent. Calvin and Servetus? Zwingli went to war? Help me out here....I'm running out of Reformation leaders and atrocities advoicated by them.

Phillip of Spain came much later - with a different pope. Charles was was the ruler at that time.

Yes, my mistake. Names are different- facts about the matter remain.

Because More did not kill anyone. He was will to die for his conviction. If Cranmer was a man of God, he would have stood at More's side in his right to believe even though Cranmer may disagree in what he believed. We are not radical Muslims, converting people by the sword.

Cranmer did not agree with the killing of More and sought to have religiousexecutions outlawed. This is well known.

I said is not a holy man, I never said he was unholy. I agree that the ones who ordered his execution were not holy. But you contract, why was it wrong to torture Kranmer but not More?

All torture is wrong. I think the Reformation did a good job of lobbying for its elimination, along with that of the stake.

 

[PaulAckermann]

ContraMundum, you always say you want to go back to soteriology, but then you want to take parting shots at the Catholic Church. I just cannot allow that, I must in good conscience respond to your attacks.

<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-c68.html>
<http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/yellowstar.htm>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge>

(This one has pics)
It happened.
Of course there were Popes who spoke against the atrocities, but there were also Popes who advocated them. Surely you won't deny that- shall we look at the lives of Innocent III, John XII, Gregory XII, Alexander VI, Sixtus IV and others?

I do appreciate you bringing these facts out, because I believe my love for the Church has to be with my eyes wide open, and I was ignorant of this. But I accept the Church with all of its warts. Here are my initial reponses.

First of all, this is not a matter of dogma, but of discipline. In the first link, it refers to "Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary". Since these are disiplinary decrees, although they are ninding at that time, they are not infallible. This is why eating meat on Friday putside of Lent can be forbidden in one era and acceptable in another. This is why many orthodox Catholics nelieve that Vatacan II was wrong in giving us the Norvus Ordo. Norvus Ordo was a matter of discipline. So this is matter of dress of Jews is a matter of discipiine.

Second, I find it curious how lightly you treat the Reformers compared to Catholics. You make it even sound as if the Reformers got rid of torure. Tell that to Margarette Clitherow, whom the Anglicans (you know, the ones who emphasised holiness) slowly crushed to death by placing one stone on her at a time. What was her great crime? She let a priest secretly give Mass in her house. This is hardly the Reformers getting rid of torture. Puritans came here to America from Protestant England in order to escape persecution and torure from the Anglicans. America was first settled by pilgrims from Protestant countries because they were being persecuted by their fellow Protestants. Protestants were not just intolerantto Catholics, but to other Protestants.

True, the Lateran Council decreed the Jews should wear different dress, but this was so that Christians would not inadvertently marry a Jew. I disagree with, but at least this was not in order to round them up, torture, and kill them. This simply did not happen at that time. But the Nazis DID intend to have the Jews wear a badge in order to torture them and kill them. In this aspect, Luther would have proud.

This is what Luther said we should do the Jews:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants

From The Jews And Their Lies - Martin Luther
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html
Compared to Luther, the Lateran Council was extremely tolerant. All the Council dealt with was the manner of dress.
The other Reformers were more tolerant than Luther toward the Jews, but neither did they make any effort to distance themselves from Luther and his anti-Semitism.

As for the Reformers- what atrocities did they advocate?

The torure and execution of Catholics.

Luther and the peasants revolt? Did the princes not do what they would normally do anyway?

Luther first encouraged the peasnats to revolt.

the princes and lords . . . are worthy, and have well deserved, that God put them down from their seats . . .

Nevertheless, you, too, must have a care that you take up your cause with a good conscience and with justice. If you have a good conscience, you have the comforting advantage that God will be with you, and will help you through . . .


Later, he couraged the princes to massacre the peasants:

...knock down, strangle, and stab...and think nothing so venomous, pernicious, or Satanic as an insurgent.

http://tatumweb.com/churchrodent/terms/peasantrevolt.htm


Luther also advoated violence in order to spead the gospel:

If you understand the Gospel rightly, I beseech you not to believe that it can be carried on without tumult, scandal, sedition . . . The word of God is a sword, is war, is ruin, is scandal
If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword and heretics with fire, why do we not turn with force of arms against these teachers of iniquity . . . why do we not "wash our hands in their blood"?

See http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ503.HTM

Luther and his anti-semitism? That was hideous, but it was the modus of the day anyway and the whole church must repent.

Please show me anti-Semtic remarks made by a pope and or a Catholic Reformer that are in any similar to Luther's comments.

If the strongest you can show of anti-semtism in the Catholic Church is the Lateran Councils advocating different dress, then Luther was in a class by himself.


Calvin and Servetus?

See http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm

Zwingli went to war?

With the anabaptists and pacificist (actually, not much of a war - just mass torture and murder)

Zwingli's Reformation was supported by the magistrate and population of Z&#252;rich </wiki/Z%C3%BCrich>, and led to significant changes in civil life, and state matters in Z&#252;rich. In particular, this movement was known for mercilessly persecuting Anabaptists </wiki/Anabaptist> and other followers of Christ who maintained a nonresistant stance.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwingli

Cranmer did not agree with the killing of More and sought to have religiousexecutions outlawed. This is well known.

I did not know this. Please enlighten. Did he only disagree after More was dead and King Henry was dead and could not execute Cranmer was well? Was it politically expedient to wait util after Henry was gone? Was he against religious executions when Protestant "Bloody Mary" was in power, and he might then be on the receiving end?

All torture is wrong. I think the Reformation did a good job of lobbying for its elimination, along with that of the stake.

They did not do a good job or getting rid of torture for Magarette Clitherow.

If the Reformation got rid of the stake, then why were there so many burning of witches in Protestant America and the Protestant part of Europe?

 

[ContraMundum]

ContraMundum, you always say you want to go back to soteriology, but then you want to take parting shots at the Catholic Church. I just cannot allow that, I must in good conscience respond to your attacks.

You misinterpret my digs at Rome as some kind of "Rome vs. Prots" thing, when it's not. I just don't believe in painting hagiographies of Rome or the Reformers or anyone when it isn't deserved.

I do appreciate you bringing these facts out, because I believe my love for the Church has to be with my eyes wide open, and I was ignorant of this. But I accept the Church with all of its warts.

So you should. Everyone must accept the past for what it is.

Here are my initial reponses.

...oh, must we?

Really, nothing you have said is not well-known and flooged to death here. Maybe I've been on the forum longer than you, but believe me, all this is nothing new.

True, the Lateran Council decreed the Jews should wear different dress, but this was so that Christians would not inadvertently marry a Jew. I disagree with, but at least this was not in order to round them up, torture, and kill them. This simply did not happen at that time.

Well, I suppose I should show you where the Church did make such decrees and allowed anti-semitism to thrive and go unchecked in its "empire" days and beyond.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/timeline.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_anti-Semitism

I put it to you that Luther was just another product of Catholic thought in his anti-semitism. But I have yet to find a single Medieval theologian, priest, teacher, bishop or Pope who was not anti-semitic. Not one. They're all bad and products of their day. Notice one thing about Luther- when he was pro-Jewish (early in his Reformer career) the books he wrote taking that position were met with opposition by the largely anti-semitic populace and scholarship. Oddly, when he wrote the filthy "Jews and their lies" (later in his career, when he suffered from being embittered by his life of trials), no one of note opposed him. Bizzare.

If the Reformation got rid of the stake, then why were there so many burning of witches in Protestant America and the Protestant part of Europe?

...because the purge of the practice of "execution for Jesus" practiced by the Medieval church took some time to occur. Witch hunts were remnants of the era that preceeded the Reformation, not a "novelty" introduced by it.

 

[PaulAckermann]

I put it to you that Luther was just another product of Catholic thought in his anti-semitism.

I get it. When a Protetant says or does something bad, it still the Catholic Church's fault.

The reason why Luther hated Jews was the same reason he hated the Catholics - because neither of them believed in justification by faith alone. Luther saw the both the Pope and Moses as being legalistic, with too much emphasis on obedience to the Law.

But I have yet to find a single Medieval theologian, priest, teacher, bishop or Pope who was not anti-semitic. Not one. They're all bad and products of their day.

"[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints or Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection. For We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly. Too, no Christian ought to presume...to injure their persons, or with violence to take their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit. Besides, in the celebration of their own festivities, no one ought disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform. ...We decree... that no one ought to dare mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried. If anyone, however, shall attempt, the tenor of this degree once known, to go against it...let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction."

The Constitution of the Jews

From Synan, Edward. The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages

For it is necessary to gather those who are at odds with the Christian religion the unity of faith by meekness, by kindness, by admonishing, by persuading, lest these...should be repelled by threats and terrors. They ought, therefore, to come together to hear from you the Word of God in a kindly frame of mind, rather than stricken with dread, result of a harshness that goes beyond due limits.

Pope Gregory I


"Is it not a far better triumph for the Church to convince and convert the Jews than to put them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the Church offers for the Jews...been instituted in vain?"

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (letter to Archbishop Henry of Mainz, 1146)

Pope Clement III The Jews are taken under papal protection." (The Apostolic See and the Jews, Documents: 492-1404; Simonsohn, Shlomo, p.66)

Pope Celestine III 1191-1198 "The Jews are taken under papal protection" (Sicut Judeis...)

(The Apostolic See and the Jews, Documents: 492-1404; Simonsohn, Shlomo, p.68)


"Request to Louis IX, king of France, to punish the crusaders, murderers and despoilers of the Jews, and to compel them to make restitution."

by Pope Gregory IX

Whew! I am tired of listing these.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_opposition_to_anti-Semitism.

Notice one thing about Luther- when he was pro-Jewish (early in his Reformer career) the books he wrote taking that position were met with opposition by the largely anti-semitic populace and scholarship. Oddly, when he wrote the filthy "Jews and their lies" (later in his career, when he suffered from being embittered by his life of trials), no one of note opposed him. Bizzare.

The early Luther was more apt to still be influenced by Catholicsm. That is when he was pro-Jewish. The later Luther was more apt to think independently of the Church.

No one of note opposed the later Luther? You mean Calvin, Zwingli, Melancthon, and Cranmer did not oppose him? Yes. That is bizarre.

Of course, you could not have meant the Catholics. Since many Catholics retained their Catholic faith, of course they opposed him.

 

[ContraMundum]

I get it. When a Protetant says or does something bad, it still the Catholic Church's fault.

Luther, and indeed all the Reformers were raised in Catholic society, right? That is my point.

I mean, how much do you want? You've been shown a litany of anti-semitism from a society and culture immersed in it and somehow you don't think their religion played a part?

If one wants to know just how anti-semitic Luther's world was one needs only to look outside of him. Take, for example, the city church in Wittenberg has an infamous stone relief called of the type called "Judensau", depicting Jews as pigs or coming in contact with them. This is the world in which he lived, and the church was not built by Lutherans, Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau

The reason why Luther hated Jews was the same reason he hated the Catholics - because neither of them believed in justification by faith alone. Luther saw the both the Pope and Moses as being legalistic, with too much emphasis on obedience to the Law.

Not true at all. In fact, wrong. Luther wrote "How we should regard Moses" and "Jesus was born a Jew", two somewhat revolutionary (for their time) and supportive works on Judaism and Jews.


As for the quotes regarding the protection of the Jews- I knew you would cite them, but they are largely without merit as history has shown. They are nice sentiments, but they were never carried through with any conviction. I suggest you read the books they came from yourself and make up your own mind- I did.

No one of note opposed the later Luther? You mean Calvin, Zwingli, Melancthon, and Cranmer did not oppose him? Yes. That is bizarre.

Context, Paul, context.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Luther, and indeed all the Reformers were raised in Catholic society, right? That is my point.

I mean, how much do you want? You've been shown a litany of anti-semitism from a society and culture immersed in it and somehow you don't think their religion played a part?

First of all, Luther went way beyond the anti-semitism of his time. The examples you gave very very mild compared to Luther's rantings.
Second, if you want to blame Catholic society for the bad in the the Reformers, then you have to credit the good things as well. The Reformer's love for God was because they were in a Catholic society. The Reformer's love for the Bible was because they were in a Catholic society. The Reformer's concern to stand right before was because they were in a Catholic society, etc. By you blaming Catholc society only for the bad reveal your anti-Catholic bias.
Third, you admit that the early Luther was pro-Jewish. The early Luther would more likely still be more influenced by Catholic society than the later Luther. The later Luther was more likely influenced by own theology.
Fourth, Luther hated the Pope, calling him the anti-Christ, because the Pope taught that we are not saved by faith alone. The Jews also taught that we are saved by faith alone. So if Luther called the Pope the anti-Christ for deny justification by faith alone, how do you think he would feel about the Jews. Also, in terms of litugy, the Jewish form of worship is similar to the Catholic form of worship. Luther would accuse Catholics and Jews of being too ritualistics. The Jews are closer to the Catholics that the Protestants in worship and the doctrine of salvation. This is why the later Luther hated the Jews so much. Once he saw the Catholic Church as the harlot of Babylon, he then saw the Jews as its mistress.

Not true at all. In fact, wrong. Luther wrote "How we should regard Moses" and "Jesus was born a Jew", two somewhat revolutionary (for their time) and supportive works on Judaism and Jews.

If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out&#8212;chase yourself to the Jews
http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1990_April/Martin_Luther_Speaks.htm

As for the quotes regarding the protection of the Jews- I knew you would cite them, but they are largely without merit as history has shown. They are nice sentiments, but they were never carried through with any conviction.

A Pope cannot force people to follow his teachings. All he can do is warn them. With their disobedience their risk the pains of hell (remember, to a Catholic, justifification is not by faith alone, but by obedience as well).

Let's apply your logic to the Lord Jesus. Our Lord gave us teachings on the sermon of the mount - love your enemies, turn the other cheek, love not the things of the world, beings at peace with all. For 2,000 years, there are been millions of those who called themselves Christian, both Catholic and Protestant, who have not obeyed the Lord's teachings. So it can be said of even our Lord, that His teachings "were never carried through with any conviction". Using your logic, we should blame Jesus for the anti-semitism of his followers. True, He spoke about love and mercy, but "they are largely without merit as history has shown. They are nice sentiments, but they were never carried through with any conviction". The same can be said of the Old Testament prohets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea. They preached to the people, but their teachings "were never carried through with any conviction".

If many do not listen to the Pope, then the Pope is in good company with Jesus and the prophets of the OT.

 

[ContraMundum]

First of all, Luther went way beyond the anti-semitism of his time. The examples you gave very very mild compared to Luther's rantings.
Second, if you want to blame Catholic society for the bad in the the Reformers, then you have to credit the good things as well. The Reformer's love for God was because they were in a Catholic society. The Reformer's love for the Bible was because they were in a Catholic society. The Reformer's concern to stand right before was because they were in a Catholic society, etc. By you blaming Catholc society only for the bad reveal your anti-Catholic bias.
Third, you admit that the early Luther was pro-Jewish. The early Luther would more likely still be more influenced by Catholic society than the later Luther. The later Luther was more likely influenced by own theology.
Fourth, Luther hated the Pope, calling him the anti-Christ, because the Pope taught that we are not saved by faith alone. The Jews also taught that we are saved by faith alone. So if Luther called the Pope the anti-Christ for deny justification by faith alone, how do you think he would feel about the Jews. Also, in terms of litugy, the Jewish form of worship is similar to the Catholic form of worship. Luther would accuse Catholics and Jews of being too ritualistics. The Jews are closer to the Catholics that the Protestants in worship and the doctrine of salvation. This is why the later Luther hated the Jews so much. Once he saw the Catholic Church as the harlot of Babylon, he then saw the Jews as its mistress.

That's a really freakish interpretation of history. Still, some versions of Catholicism need a villian, don't they?

I'd agree that liturgical worship is closer to Jewish worship (being involved in both in my life) which is one reason I attend a liturgical church, but, having said that, both you and I know that some of the best portions of synagogue and Temple worship were outlawed at Nicea and afterward by the Gentile Christians. Perhaps that's why portionas of the Latin Mass with it's enshrined anti-semitic Good Friday prayer is so repugnant to the Christian heart? Which Pope was it again who re-introduced that prayer? Thank goodness most decent Catholics refuse to pray that prayer, with the exception of the SSPX, who even brag about how diligently they keep to it. Weird religion, traditionalism, eh?


Are you involved in the SSPX??

If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out&#8212;chase yourself to the Jews
http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1990_April/Martin_Luther_Speaks.htm

Now, now, better stop there son. This is about the worst attempt to apologise for Rome as I've come across in a long time.


You really have no idea how bad you sound in this post.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because you're new.

 

[ContraMundum]

It's funny how when Catholic e-pologists run out of theological steam they just take snippets of Luther and say "see, Luther was bad". Care factor zero.

Before the thread was hijacked, we were talking about the doctrine of imputed righteousness.

No one, as far as I know, has addressed the text "God our righteousness", have they?

What does that text mean? Could people who attend Sola Scriptura churches answer?

 

[PaulAckermann]

I started this because you said that that the Reformation caused a spiritual revival. I pointed out that God does not bring a revival out of Luther's ilk. Then it turned out to be a contest - who was worse the Reformers or the Catholics. I agreed that the Church was corrupt at that time, but you seem to still see the Reformers through rose-colored glasses. I also has said that I do not think the Reformer, even Luther, were evil. I have gone on record as saying that the other Reformers were not anti-semitic (although they could have spoken out against Luther and his anti-semitism). But you have gone on records that there there was NOT EVEN ONE pope or Catholic theologian who was not anti-Semitic. Talk about taking snippets when one is losing the argument!

For you, the Reformers were all good and the Catholics were all bad. For me, the Catholic Church at the time was bad, with some bright spots. And for all its promise, the Reformation did not improve things spiritually. In fact, Luther himself admitted that things were worse. I know you say that you are not impressed with what Luther said. But who would know better than Luther himself that the Reformation did not lead to a spiritual revival.

BTW, I would be more than happy to respond back to soteriology question, but with all of your complaining, you just don't seem to let me.

Shall we start talking about justification by faith?

 

[ContraMundum]

I started this because you said that that the Reformation caused a spiritual revival. I pointed out that God does not bring a revival out of Luther's ilk. Then it turned out to be a contest - who was worse the Reformers or the Catholics. I agreed that the Church was corrupt at that time, but you seem to still see the Reformers through rose-colored glasses. I also has said that I do not think the Reformer, even Luther, were evil. I have gone on record as saying that the other Reformers were not anti-semitic (although they could have spoken out against Luther and his anti-semitism).

Sorry champ, your facts are all a bit dodgy, don't you think? I mean, for goodness' sakes, the article you cited from Angelus mag (the world's most lame "Catholic" e-zine, which is neither Catholic, sound or sane) is full of misquotes, and therefore lies. I have Luther's works on the shelf downstairs, and if I had a scanner and cared, I'd take the bozo who wrote it to task (but the SSPX is a cult, so there's no point- the poor sap who wrote that article was probably trained by Bp Williamson, ich...he's a victim of a victim). One would think the SSPX had taken scholarship lessons from the JW's, which is not far from the truth. How can a rational, intelligent person fall for such dishonest deception? Answer: information control and disinformation. Talk about the 10 Commandments? The author of that pool of sludge just broke a couple! Have mercy!

But you have gone on records that there there was NOT EVEN ONE pope or Catholic theologian who was not anti-Semitic. Talk about taking snippets when one is losing the argument!

None of the quotes indicated to me any reversion from anti-semitism. One merely tried to curb the abuses given the Jewish people, but never recanted of them or apologised. It was not pro-semitic at all. It was largely political. Read carefully. The others are vague at best, and one doesn't even mention the Jews. Been duped by the Roman e-pologetic machine again?

Why don't you take a leaf out of JPII and Benedict XVI and quit trying to justify the evils in church history? Apologise to the Jews. Start here. You yourself coud do it. Go over to MJ and do it.

...now that would impress me.

For you, the Reformers were all good and the Catholics were all bad.

You've said that already, and more than once I have said that this is not so. I think you wish I had that kind of attitude so you could have somebody to prove wrong, because, like all converts, you were unhappy then and you'll still be unhappy until the whole world agrees that you made the right decision.

For me, the Catholic Church at the time was bad, with some bright spots.

Funny, that's my position too. Perhaps had you have read more carefully, you might have picked it up.

BTW, I would be more than happy to respond back to soteriology question, but with all of your complaining, you just don't seem to let me.

I'd prefer someone who was a little more balanced in theology to debate with, frankly. Maybe you might get a few bites over at GT or on some other forum, but not from me. I grew bored with the old "Rome good, all others bad" nonsense ages ago. Double-plus good, eh brother?

Considering you have no idea what I believe, and have tried your best to paint yourself an opponent in me, so you can prove yourself right (to yourself), I think you'd be better off debating over at GT. There's plenty of willing billy goats there to butt heads with, and after a nice round of head-butting, you can all sit back and say to yourselves "ah...that felt good...let's do it again".

If you want to discuss theology with me, answer my question. With care.

Shall we start talking about justification by faith?

There's plenty of threads over at GT about that, and probably a few here too. Go, enjoy. Maybe you can find someone who will rush into your RCIA class (do the SSPX have them? I thought they didn't) and throw out all their critical thought- sounds good, eh?

How come Catholics online are nothing like Catholics?

 

[PaulAckermann]

Your are right that maybe it would be best that we do not contrinue our discussion. Please forgive me for anything I have written that was un-Christian.

May God bless.

 

[moonbeam]

No one, as far as I know, has addressed the text "God our righteousness", have they?

What does that text mean?

The text means exactly what it says...the language is clear and explicit .. God (in the person of Jesus Christ the 2nd person of the Godhead) our (yours and mine, being members of the Body of Christ) righteousness (encompassing in its entirity all that pertains to Holiness and right action from Gods perspective or mans) ... God our righteousness ... to summerize... the recognition and acknowledgement that we have, nore can have, no righteousness of our own except that righteousness which is Christs own (His personal righteousness) ... which by the Fathers grace has been made our own (ours personally) by our union with Christ.