Was God behind the Reformation?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Impossible. For the very nature of Christ (Christology) has been redefined, and redefined some more, and then redefined again.

I'm kinda lost to understand how that relates to this thread, sorry...


If a person is not a Christian, then, IMO, they aren't a Christian and would not be a part of the Body of Christ. If that's your point.


But what defines a Christian doesn't appear to be the issue of this thread, IMO.


MY $0.01...


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[ScottBot]

I'm kinda lost to understand how that relates to this thread, sorry...


If a person is not a Christian, then, IMO, they aren't a Christian and would not be a part of the Body of Christ. If that's your point.


But what defines a Christian doesn't appear to be the issue of this thread, IMO.


MY $0.01...


Pax


- Josiah



.

Some of the fundamental historical beliefs about the nature, essence and purpose of Christ were altered and redefined in the Reformation.

 

[Dewi Sant]

Was God behind the Reformation?

I believe not.
King Henry VIII was behind the reformation, his selfish desire to start a church where he is the head and therefore sets the rules.


There has always been a non-catholic church, the Orthodox church, Coptic church and other ancient churches.

 

[Albion]

Some of the fundamental historical beliefs about the nature, essence and purpose of Christ were altered and redefined in the Reformation.

Do you care to elaborate and substantiate that astonishing and unsubstantiated allegation?

The Trinity was affirmed.
The sacrifice of the Cross was affirmed.
The deity of Christ was affirmed.
That Christ established his church was affirmed.
That salvation is possible only because of Christ's sacrifice was affirmed.

There appears not to be any redefinition of the "nature, essence, and purpose of Christ" despite the claim.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some of the fundamental historical beliefs about the nature, essence and purpose of Christ were altered and redefined in the Reformation.

I think the new policy here requires that you support each of those claims with quotes from authoritative sources, with full thesis citations.

I think you'll need to show where each Reformer specificly taught, as dogma, something clearly in conflict with the Bible or other Authoritative source for each of those items:
The Nature of Christ
The Essense of Christ
The Purpose of Christ

And then, once you've given citations for each of the Reformers (I'm not sure what number you have in mind here), I think it would be good to show if those teachings of those men are the official DOGMAS of all Protestant denominations (in Protestantism, NO MAN is Authoritative in any absolute sense and therefore just because, for example, Martin Luther taught something doesn't mean that the Lutheran faith community teaches such as dogma).


I enjoy theology, so I look forward to your post on that...


Thanks!


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[ScottBot]

Do you care to elaborate and substantiate that astonishing and unsubstantiated allegation?

The Trinity was affirmed.
The sacrifice of the Cross was affirmed.
The deity of Christ was affirmed.
That Christ established his church was affirmed.
That salvation is possible only because of Christ's sacrifice was affirmed.

There appears not to be any redefinition of the "nature, essence, and purpose of Christ" despite the claim.

Lets see....

It is about the general permissiveness within non-Catholic (or Orthodox) circles to allow people to teach just about anything that they perceive to be interpretable from the bible.

I hear people teach about a 9 person Godhead. I hear about preachers teaching a 1 person Godhead, with 3 different modes. I hear about the imputation of Christ's righteousness, without there being an actualy substantive change in a person (the snow covered dungheap theory), I hear about the depravity of man, the inherent evil of the material world, The fundamental nature of Christ's church, the abolition of the miisterial priesthood, sanctification and justification were redefined, the validity of the sacraments were either redefined or abolished altogether.

 

[KEPLER]

I think that is one point that Catholics and Orthodox fundamentally agree on is Christology.

And the Lutherans!

Kepler

 

[Asinner]

Has it been redefined? Are there 30,000 definitions of the "very nature of Christ?" No..

For starters, the denial of honoring the Theotokos is the denial of the Incarnation. Many arguments heard in the Third Ecumenical Council centered around the use of the term Theotokos or "Mother of God". This was so much the case that Kallistos Ware wrote that"the same primacy that the word homoousion occupies in the doctrine of the Trinity, the word Theotokos holds in the doctrine of the Incarnation".

God Bless

 

[Albion]

Lets see....

It is about the general permissiveness within non-Catholic (or Orthodox) circles to allow people to teach just about anything that they perceive to be interpretable from the bible.

WHaaaat? You said that the nature, essence, and purpose of Christ were redefined. Your answer does not address any of those.

I hear people teach about a 9 person Godhead. I hear about preachers teaching a 1 person Godhead, with 3 different modes. I hear about the imputation of Christ's righteousness, without there being an actualy substantive change in a person (the snow covered dungheap theory), I hear about the depravity of man, the inherent evil of the material world, The fundamental nature of Christ's church, the abolition of the miisterial priesthood, sanctification and justification were redefined, the validity of the sacraments were either redefined or abolished altogether.

No evidence. Sorry.

 

[KEPLER]

Was God behind the Reformation?

I believe not.
King Henry VIII was behind the reformation, his selfish desire to start a church where he is the head and therefore sets the rules.

There has always been a non-catholic church, the Orthodox church, Coptic church and other ancient churches.

Erm...go back and read your history texts again. The whole reason the English Monarch bears the title "Defensor Fidei" is becasue Henry VIII and Luther fought (via correspondence). 'Enry was given the title "Defender of the Faith" prior to his own breakaway.

Kepler

 

[ScottBot]

I think the new policy here requires that you support each of those claims with quotes from authoritative sources, with full thesis citations.

I think you'll need to show where each Reformer specificly taught, as dogma, something clearly in conflict with the Bible or other Authoritative source for each of those items:
The Nature of Christ
The Essense of Christ
The Purpose of Christ

And then, once you've given citations for each of the Reformers (I'm not sure what number you have in mind here), I think it would be good to show if those teachings of those men are the official DOGMAS of all Protestant denominations (in Protestantism, NO MAN is Authoritative in any absolute sense and therefore just because, for example, Martin Luther taught something doesn't mean that the Lutheran faith community teaches such as dogma).


I enjoy theology, so I look forward to your post on that...


Thanks!


Pax.


- Josiah



.

Thanks for proving my point. Since the Reformation, no-one has any authority to define what the bible means, how to interpret it, how to apply it. You have one group of Baptists calling another group of Baptists apostate, if you don't like what one pastor teaches, you just walk down the street and find one that does. Its is religious consumerism. I think the original intent of the Reformers was indeed noble, but I think that the intent was corrupted by power and money hungry men who knew how to use people's inclinations towards religious submission to increase their lots in life.

 

[Albion]

For starters, the denial of honoring the Theotokos is the denial of the Incarnation.

No, it's not.

Even if it were, you haven't identified anyone or how many people you are criticizing.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Thanks for proving my point. Since the Reformation, no-one has any authority to define what the bible means, how to interpret it, how to apply it. You have one group of Baptists calling another group of Baptists apostate, if you don't like what one pastor teaches, you just walk down the street and find one that does. Its is religious consumerism. I think the original intent of the Reformers was indeed noble, but I think that the intent was corrupted by power and money hungry men who knew how to use people's inclinations towards religious submission to increase their lots in life.

True.. keep in mind, false teachings are from two sources... from within and from outside.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think

the new policy here requires that you support each of those claims with quotes from authoritative sources, with full thesis citations.

I think you'll need to show where each Reformer specificly taught, as dogma, something clearly in conflict with the Bible or other Authoritative source for each of those items:

The Nature of Christ
The Essense of Christ
The Purpose of Christ


And then, once you've given citations for each of the Reformers (I'm not sure what number you have in mind here), I think it would be good to show if those teachings of those men are the official DOGMAS of all Protestant denominations (in Protestantism, NO MAN is Authoritative in any absolute sense and therefore just because, for example, Martin Luther taught something doesn't mean that the Lutheran faith community teaches such as dogma).


I enjoy theology, so I look forward to your post on that...


Thanks!


Pax.


- Josiah

Thanks for proving my point. Since the Reformation, no-one has any authority to define what the bible means, how to interpret it, how to apply it. You have one group of Baptists calling another group of Baptists apostate, if you don't like what one pastor teaches, you just walk down the street and find one that does. Its is religious consumerism. I think the original intent of the Reformers was indeed noble, but I think that the intent was corrupted by power and money hungry men who knew how to use people's inclinations towards religious submission to increase their lots in life.

You DO plan to document, with full thesis citations, where the Reformers taught, as dogma, teachings on each of those 3 areas that are in clear conflict with Scriptures or other Authoritative sources? And then that Protestant denominations teach these errant views on these 3 subjects as dogma?

Or is your position that your particular denomination disagrees with some other denominations on some points?




Just wondering...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Asinner]

You DO plan to document, with full thesis citations, where the Reformers taught, as dogma, teachings on each of those 3 areas that are in clear conflict with Scriptures or other Authoritative sources? And then that Protestant denominations teach these errant views on these 3 subjects as dogma?
.

The reformers views were very close to those of the Catholic Church; i.e., honoring the Theotokos, presence in the Eucharist, infant baptism, ect.. It was what sprang forth from the initial break that divided Christians away from these teachings even further. Luther stated how sad he was of all the division he saw and I don't believe it was his intention for Christianity to branch out as it did.

God Bless

 

[cristoiglesia]

The reformers views were very close to those of the Catholic Church; i.e., honoring the Theotokos, presence in the Eucharist, infant baptism, ect.. It was what sprang forth from the initial break that divided Christians away from these teachings even further. Luther stated how sad he was of all the division he saw and I don't believe it was his intention for Christianity to branch out as it did.

God Bless

 

[ScottBot]

The reformers views were very close to those of the Catholic Church; i.e., honoring the Theotokos, presence in the Eucharist, infant baptism, ect.. It was what sprang forth from the initial break that divided Christians away from these teachings even further. Luther stated how sad he was of all the division he saw and I don't believe it was his intention for Christianity to branch out as it did.

God Bless

Ditto. Its wasn't what the initial reformers believed and taught that bothers me as much as what they started.

 

[InnerPhyre]

The LDS self-claims exactly the same thing. They are the True Church and everyone else is of the apostasy. I guess anyone can self claim anything they like, no problem.


I don't see anything in the Bible that suggests the the church of Jesus Christ was, is or will be divided or was, is or will be a particular political institutional denomination.


Consequently, I don't blame the Pope or any Archbishops for the fact that they've excommunicated most of the world's Christians, fracturing any supposed "united" denomination. I don't equate any institution with Christianity. I don't blame them for the one million congregation and several thousand denominations.


More to the point of the thread, when a person, congregation or denomination insists that they are unaccountable and without need for reform, such would be a significant red flag for me. A person or denomination that insists what they teach and self-claim is True, unquestionable, unaccountable on the basis that they so self-claim is one about which I would be extremely beware of. But that's just me.


I'm sure we disagree.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

Did Paul view the Gnostics and the Judaizers as part of his church? They believed in Christ, but held views that Paul felt were heretical.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Ditto. Its wasn't what the initial reformers believed and taught that bothers me as much as what they started.

Back to how and why they started... The source is the key, not the results of the source.

 

[ScottBot]

Back to how and why they started... The source is the key, not the results of the source.

The results are as important if not more important than the source. Luther's problem was originally corruption within the Catholic heirarchy. No knowledgable, honest Catholic will deny it. What resulted was much more than a cleaning up of behavior, it was a complete redefinition of Christianity to something that the Apostles themselves wouldn't recognize.