Where the reformers inspired and lead by the Holy Spirit?
Yes.
What else can one say if the reforms were in accord with Scripture and were needed at the time?
Actually, the "rules" are made by those who misunderstand what Paul was saying.The Apostle Paul ... had all of these rules about men and women and head coverings and all.
Yes, of course, they were.
Having said that, this does not mean that everything they did and promoted was of God.
Seems the "living, breathing Word of God" changes regularly given the divisions of Protestants today, even among those calling themselves various versions of Adventist. As seen in this thread, many Christians outside the Church don't even want to be called Protestants/protestors anymore.The reformers were indeed led by the Holy Spirit.
However, as humans, we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
Therefore, it is a mistake to identify ourselves so strongly with those long-ago leaders of the Reformation.
By definition, they were human leaders. They may have been led of the Spirit, but they may not have understood all the Spirit was attempting to teach them. In other words, they may not have followed the Holy Spirit completely.
By standing firmly upon dogma established by human leaders, we put ourselves in the unenviable position of respecting a long-dead leader, more than the living, breathing Word of God.
Because the Word is so much more than any human has ever understood or codified!
Not the Reformation I was referring to, but thanks for playing.Yeh, like during the 1960s and 70s and still unfolding. If Christians had only waited on the Vatican for 400 years or so.
There is one Reformation. From what I can tell, you were speaking of some more recent developments in church history, but that's not the Reformation and, incidentally also, not that significant by comparison. The posts that preceded yours DID have the Protestant Reformation in mind, so you can see why I had that in mind also.Not the Reformation I was referring to, but thanks for playing.
the Reformation I referenced ended with the council at Trent (started with Luther still alive BTW) was finally closed (1563) and that closure delayed for many reasons rather than viewing it as completely unsettled until 1563. Also and technically the remaining conservative segments of leadership still present in the 16th century had long been attempting to make reforms in response to various liberal "enlightenments" beginning centuries before Luther was born (with roots starting in the 13th century), but that was not the topic of the thread, which was obviously a reference to the Protestant Reformation.There is one Reformation. From what I can tell, you were speaking of some more recent developments in church history, but that's not the Reformation and, incidentally also, not that significant by comparison. The posts that preceded yours DID have the Protestant Reformation in mind, so you can see why I had that in mind also.
Actually, the "rules" are made by those who misunderstand what Paul was saying.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 were a quote from the letter Paul was answering, when he wrote I Corinthians.
And Paul's answer to that quote is found in the next verse, 1 Corinthians 14:36.
And 1 Timothy 2:11-15 was all about ONE woman, who was a false teacher. This can be proved from the Greek, and from history of Corinthian cults.
As far as 1 Corinthians 11 and headcoverings... this passage has been so misunderstood! Verses 3-12 are only establishing the need for a covering. But verses 13-16 define what the covering is, and give the conclusion of the matter.
It's so easy to read the bible superficially, putting people into bondage. When the entire focus of the New Covenant is freedom.
Where the reformers inspired and lead by the Holy Spirit?
How do YOU define "Protestant?"As seen in this thread, many Christians outside the Church don't even want to be called Protestants/protestors anymore.
Why does my definition matter?How do YOU define "Protestant?"