The second reformation.

[Albion]

I see the first Reformation as seeking to reform the Catholic Church. Result being a number of denominations that were similar in ways, but tried to correct what they perceived as errors in the Church, but maintaining Church itself.

I see the second Reformation as those having mostly seem to think the first Reformation didn't go far enough, failing to correct certain errors.

I wouldn't disagree. But I see it more like a series of new reforms. There were the Mennonites, then the Wesleyans who morphed into the Holiness movement that gave birth to the Pentecostal movement. And this was happening while the Unitarians, Adventists, and a bunch of Restorationists were appearing. That sort of development.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I wouldn't disagree. But I see it more like a series of new reforms. There were the Mennonites, then the Wesleyans who morphed into the Holiness movement that gave birth to the Pentecostal movement. And this was happening while the Unitarians, Adventists, and a bunch of Restorationists were appearing. That sort of development.

This is very true too. I suppose it depends on what kind of discussion is going on or what is trying to be understood. What I said was certainly a very simplified distinction in the kinds of things that went on.

I may be wrong, but maybe the times and general social climate have shaped the focus of these reformations into broad categories? Whereas more refined (mostly theological) concerns have led to the finer distinctions you mention?

But like I said, my purpose wasn't at all to be dogmatic about it. Nor didactic.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I wonder if everybody who holds to a theology different from yours really does miss what the passage says or if you've read the passage according to a pattern that you've received in your church. You would not be alone in doing that. Virtually everybody takes the received view of their church and filters scripture though it.

1Ti 3:14-16 NASB I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. 16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.​

There is some diversity of opinion among commentators about whether this phrase is to be taken in connection with the preceding, meaning that "the church" is the pillar and ground of the truth; or whether it is to be taken in connection with what follows, meaning that the principal support of the truth was the doctrine there referred to - that God was manifest in the flesh.

I'd say it is the church that is intended but the other possibility also exists and ought not be summarily dismissed.

I think we all always tend to read through our theological lenses, whatever those may be. I have found many other examples of things I missed before, (and before that, as I went through several periods of growth) but that isn't the point of this thread.

The Church had to be the pillar and ground of truth as the Gospel was being spread initially because the NT Scriptures hadn't been written.

But at any rate, that's a ways back. Don't want to derail the discussion.

 

[GingerBeer]

The Church had to be the pillar and ground of truth as the Gospel was being spread initially because the NT Scriptures hadn't been written.

I've seen that line of argument before. It's from before what the thread originator called the first reformation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I've seen that line of argument before. It's from before that the thread originator called the first reformation.

It's not really an argument. It's simple fact that the Church was spread before the NT was written.

I'm afraid I don't follow you on the rest. You mean this post?

The first reformation protested the Pope

The second reformation protests the Pastor and the institution that creates the pastor.

thoughts?

I was referring to the very early Apostolic period and I think the OP was referring to the Protestant and later reformations.

So I'm not quite sure what you mean, I'm afraid.

 

[Albion]

I've seen that line of argument before. It's from before that the thread originator called the first reformation.

Maybe it would help to point out that it was indeed the 'church,' but the verse makes clear that what is meant there is the household of God, the people of faith, not some organization.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Since you ask, I'd say "no." The first Reformation wasn't exactly about the Pope. It was against a bigger drift away from the Apostolic faith that had occurred. Remember the Solas. Not one of them was about demoting the bishop of Rome.

Actually, the Reformation began because Martin Luther got angry about the sales of indulgences. So not only did he protest indulgences, he piled on what he felt was wrong about the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, he piled on too many things that were the bees in his bonnet, but wasn't hurting anyone else. I mean, I've read the 95 Theses, and three quarters of them are about indulgences, in one way or another. The point is, I agree with them.

The first one of these was,

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. repentance.
   1. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
   2. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
   3. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
   4. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
   5. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
   6. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.
   7. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
   8. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
   9. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
   10. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).
   11. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
   12. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

Well, it goes on from there, so I will not read copy the whole thing. But note: He is preaching of repentance, and how the whole idea of Purgatory is poorly passed on, by clergy who are wicked, and the Bishops who are asleep.

 

[GingerBeer]

I'm afraid I don't follow you on the rest. You mean this post?

It was a typing error, I typed "that" when I meant "what". Read it as "It's from before what the thread originator called the first reformation."

 

[GingerBeer]

Maybe it would help to point out that it was indeed the 'church,' but the verse makes clear that what is meant there is the household of God, the people of faith, not some organization.

I am not sure that Paul meant to exclude the church as organised groups of people - that is what an organisation is I think.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Maybe it would help to point out that it was indeed the 'church,' but the verse makes clear that what is meant there is the household of God, the people of faith, not some organization.

Ok, then I think I understand Ginger's comment.

Fact is, I would agree, except to say that the Church is/was both.

The Apostles necessarily established the Church and taught the doctrine to the people, as well as to the ones ordained as their successors. The keeping of that truth has always fallen to both the clergy and the laity together, and the Church is necessarily an organization - formed of people.

Well, it was necessarily an organization throughout early Church history. I know that for some people it has been redefined in the past few centuries.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It was a typing error, I typed "that" when I meant "what". Read it as "It's from before what the thread originator called the first reformation."

Ok, I think I understand you.

I'm always kind of walking the fence on discussions like this. I try to speak from what I know most folks are talking about, but "Church" means something different to me compared to the "Church" which underwent the reformations.

And I suppose it necessarily means something different in Scripture, then, than what people might be considering it to be when they make their comments.

 

[GingerBeer]

Ok, I think I understand you.

I'm always kind of walking the fence on discussions like this. I try to speak from what I know most folks are talking about, but "Church" means something different to me compared to the "Church" which underwent the reformations.

And I suppose it necessarily means something different in Scripture, then, than what people might be considering it to be when they make their comments.

I guess church means an assembly of people. They assemble to hear the gospel pray and worship. They think of themselves as a kind of family, brothers and sisters united in Jesus Christ. And they believe "the gospel". But defining "the gospel" is not easy and people who say they believe it differ sharply about it.

 

[Albion]

Actually, the Reformation began because Martin Luther got angry about the sales of indulgences...
Well, it goes on from there, so I will not read copy the whole thing. But note: He is preaching of repentance, and how the whole idea of Purgatory is poorly passed on, by clergy who are wicked, and the Bishops who are asleep.

The sale of indulgences was the issue that prompted the first formal criticism from Luther, but I was speaking of the basic principles of the Reformation as they came to be thereafter.

 

[Albion]

Well, it was necessarily an organization throughout early Church history. I know that for some people it has been redefined in the past few centuries.

There were organized churches and dioceses, but that verse does not speak of "church" meaning the institutional church organization. The "pillar" holding up the new religion was the faithfulness of the members, the people of God, the household of God. That's what I was trying to explain.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There were organized churches and dioceses, but that verse does not speak of "church" meaning the institutional church organization. The "pillar" holding up the new religion was the faithfulness of the members, the people of God, the household of God. That's what I was trying to explain.

Gotcha.

And I quite agree, that faithfulness to the deposit of faith as received from the Apostles has always (for us anyway) been dependent on the people of God. So I completely agree.

 

[Albion]

I like the way you worded that, too.

 

[Anguspure]

do yu know of any examples of "churchless" Christians in the Bible?

Loaded question. To the hilt.

 

[Anguspure]

The first reformation protested the Pope

The second reformation protests the Pastor and the institution that creates the pastor.

thoughts?

In my role as a Master Mariner I am familiar with issues of authority.
In particular it is very common for sinful people to try and seperate the issue of responsiblity and consequence fron the role of authority.
It is likely that the revolutions of the Church and of the world in general can all be traced back to a break down in this balance.
Generally if authority is opposed by the masses it can be shown that the apparent authors have failed in the keeping of their responsibilities and suffer no consequence as a result.

 

[Albion]

Loaded question. To the hilt.

I don't think so. It is evident from the NT writings that to be a Christian in the early days meant to join in the fellowship of the community, partake of the prayers and the Holy Meal, and to share property with other believers in that local Christian community.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The first reformation protested the Pope

The second reformation protests the Pastor and the institution that creates the pastor.

thoughts?

I am thinking the real complaint should be churches are living far beneath what God has given and can be attained to with its current set up.
You can’t get away from the 5 empowerment’s (not offices) listed in Ephesians. Nor can you get away from supporting them so they can dedicate themselves full time to maintaining that supernatural empowerment so they can serve others with it.
So the real question becomes how do people become servents rather than leaders. (Knowing full well that the “servent leader” idea is just more of the same old same old with a different name.)

So it’s not that God has forsaken a church because it has set up some kind of institutional governing structure. It’s just they don’t have what it takes to do differently in a higher level.