Why we cannot accept the Reformation!

[DeaconDean]

By the time of Martin Luther, even Catholics admit that the church had become corrupt/greedy. See Luther's 95 Thesis on Indulgences.

But there was a lot of history behind the Reformation also.

To "reform" from Merriam Webster's dictionary:

"the action or process of reforming an institution or practice."

The Catholic church was in need of "the action/process to reform (much like reforming a criminal) an institution or practice.

The Catholic church was in the "practice of influencing politics". That's a fact.

The Catholic church (as an institution) needed "reforming" in its practice of selling indulgences. That's a fact.

And the Reformation, brought about these "reforms".

But by the time of the meeting of the Council of Trent, when the "Counter-Reformation" started, it was already too late.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

You said:

"to sin without limits is not a reformation".

I addressed that.

what you talking about is "antinomianism". (lawlessness)

please go learn what reform means the definition of reform

"the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt,unsatisfactory, etc"

I can claim to know like Luther did but I wont because we are all educated here and it's hard to take advantage of educated people who wanted new Liberal christianty that allow you to do whatever whenever

When you say GOD is three forms, Father, Son, and Holy spirit and you call Jesus the Father and mix between saying they are one in person then clearly you didnt do your research on Indian beliefs who too claim God is one but comes in many forms lol

Ok, back the blame game up here.

Please show me where I said that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Mary7]

The current Pope is using his station to further leftist political agendas almost daily.

Oh, caring for the poor, sick and needy as instructed in the Bible is 'leftist'?

 

[Mary7]

What is bothering me about the Reformation (I am Protestant) is that The Church of England was formed by a king who wanted to be able to divorce his current wife. I don't see God being the source of that.
Also Luther wrote that Jews should be killed. I don't see God being his source either.

Luther thought Jews were dogs. “We are at fault for not slaying them,” he fumed shortly before his death.
Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them.” In addition, “their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.” Still, this wasn’t enough.

Luther also urged that “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,” and that “all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.” What Jews could do was to have “a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade” put into their hands so “young, strong Jews and Jewesses” could “earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”

He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature. Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing Eucharistic hosts; they poisoned wells.

 

[Mary7]

The reformers in doing away with Church authority had to embrace individual authority and we see the results of that today.

Yes, we do. Uncountable numbers of false teachers (especially on TV) teaching uninformed sheep false interpretations of scripture with no one to hold them accountable.
So many denominations each doing 'their own thing' with no accountability. I at least stick to the 'mainline denominations' for some semblance of safety after being burned spiritually in some 'non denominational' churches whose leaders interpret for their own selfish reasons and answering to no one.

 

[DeaconDean]

What is bothering me about the Reformation (I am Protestant) is that The Church of England was formed by a king who wanted to be able to divorce his current wife. I don't see God being the source of that.
Also Luther wrote that Jews should be killed. I don't see God being his source either.

Luther thought Jews were dogs. “We are at fault for not slaying them,” he fumed shortly before his death.
Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them.” In addition, “their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.” Still, this wasn’t enough.

Luther also urged that “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,” and that “all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.” What Jews could do was to have “a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade” put into their hands so “young, strong Jews and Jewesses” could “earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”

He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature. Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing Eucharistic hosts; they poisoned wells.

Addressing Luther's comments first, 1) You cannot make a person anti-________. In Luther's mind, the Jews were guilty of murdering the Savior. And addressing the King of England; 2) Even Jesus knew at the time, that the scribes and Pharisees had twisted the "Law" so much that a man could "divorce" his wife for a reason as simple as she didn't make supper to his liking.

The whole point of the Reformation was there was some "reforming" that the church needed. Which was addressed in Luther's 95 Thesis.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Mary7]

Addressing Luther's comments first, 1) You cannot make a person anti-________. In Luther's mind, the Jews were guilty of murdering the Savior. And addressing the King of England; 2) Even Jesus knew at the time, that the scribes and Pharisees had twisted the "Law" so much that a man could "divorce" his wife for a reason as simple as she didn't make supper to his liking.

The whole point of the Reformation was there was some "reforming" that the church needed. Which was addressed in Luther's 95 Thesis.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Actually, no, Luther did not hold the Jews responsible for Jesus' death.
The pope refused King Henry's request for divorce and remarriage so this is when he started his own church.

 

[DeaconDean]

Actually, no, Luther did not hold the Jews responsible for Jesus' death.
The pope refused King Henry's request for divorce and remarriage so this is when he started his own church.

"Not only did Luther not hold the Jews responsible for the Crucifixion, but he wrote an essay in 1523 entitled “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” in which he called on his followers to show only Christian love for the Jewish people and to abolish the social and economic restrictions against them.

There was an ulterior motive to Luther’s actions. His aim was to use such calls to convince German Jewry to convert to his anti-Catholic Christian movement, thus fulfilling a goal that had been denied to the Church for over a thousand years.

But the Jewish “no” to his conversionary mission was as loud as it had been in denying the Roman Catholic call for conversion. By the 1530s, Luther began to write and preach only criticisms of Jews and Judaism culminating in a vicious essay entitled “Concerning the Jews and Their Lies” (1543)."

Source

""Yes, that tastes good to them, into their hearts, they smack their lips like swine. That is how they want it. Call more: 'Crucify him, crucify him.' Scream more: 'His blood come upon us and our children.' (Matthew 27:25) I mean it came and found you..."

-Excerpts from "Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi", By Martin Luther; In The Jew in Christian Theology, Gerhard Falk, McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1931

Care to retract that statement?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Abdelas]

You edited the last and most critical part of the verse!

Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The "church" is built on Jesus Christ, not men.

The Reformation was not a revolt against the Apostles, but a revolt against what the Church had become under 1500 years of men.

 

[Vicomte13]

What was reformed? The church?

No reformation here in reality new churches were started!

The new churches are false churches with false doctrines be cause the Bible says so!

Jesus Christ and the Bible say
Matt 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Jesus Christ is the one who builds the church, not luther, calvin or Henry the eighth!

One church: I will build my church, singular!
There's one church cos it's the kingdom of God, and there is one king and one kingdom!

The church singular is the body of Christ, Christ has only one body!

1 Cor 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Eph 4:5

one Lord, one faith, one baptism

The new testament days 31 times "the faith" one faith we all have to believe! As in "I have kept the faith"
2 Tim 4:7

And "thee faith" is the faith of the apostles, this promise made to the apostles!
John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you
Matt 28 go into the whole world, teaching them...
Lk 10:16 he who hears you (the apostles) hears me!

The church is built on the apostles!

Eph 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets
luther, calvin, etc. Are NOT Apostles!

If you believe the Bible alone, where does the Bible say to have a reformation? Or camp meeting, or Sunday school, or a revival, or a revival in a tent?

The Church did need reforming from various sins, and it DID reform. Nobody needed all of the bloodshed, and the fact of that bloodshed permanently reduced both the Catholic and all of the Protestant Churches that fought all of those bloody wars. About the only old Christian institutions with really clean hands are the Quakers.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some Jews did actually convert to the Evangelical faith during the Reformation, but many did not.

I think Luther was idealistic and assumed many people should feel the way he did, at times, and have the same concerns. So he did not understand the Jews because he saw them through his own religious perspective and 1500+ years of prejudices. Later in his life he also became increasingly hostile to the "Papists" and it clouded his perspective on them as well.

Many, many people during this time period were like this. It was not unique to Luther. People in general were relatively closed-minded. It was the era of a newfound individualism, when that mentality was new and fresh and intoxicating.

Luther was also trained in medieval scholastic method which was frequently polemical in tone, often aggresively so (watch/read The Name of the Rose some time, where the Dominicans and Franciscans end up arguing and shouting at each other over a debate as to whether Christ owned his own clothes). He couldn't help but carry that over into much of his writings. He wasn't like his disciple Melanchthon, who was trained in humanism and tended to favor good rhetoric over winning an argument.

Today my faith deals less polemically with both Jews and Catholics and we try to understand both on their own terms, and not just ours.

 

[PanDeVida]

The Reformation was not a revolt against the Apostles, but a revolt against what the Church had become under 1500 years of men.

Adelas, the protestant reformation is against the Apostles and above all against Christ Himself, who established His Church on Rock, who the caretakers are men/Apostles/Bishops/Priests of the Church.

The first revolt was by Judas Iscariot the betrayer, who thought his way was the right way to do things.

 

[DeaconDean]

Adelas, the protestant reformation is against the Apostles and above all against Christ Himself, who established His Church on Rock, who the caretakers are men/Apostles/Bishops/Priests of the Church.

The first revolt was by Judas Iscariot the betrayer, who thought his way was the right way to do things.

And there is the typical Catholic answer.

Not taking into account the various ways the church abused its "power".

The first revolt was by Judas Iscariot the betrayer, who thought his way was the right way to do things.

Here is where you are dead wrong!

The first "betrayer" was ADAM!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I wonder how many people are still either in "purgatory" or in hell because they believed:

"The following is the form of the indulgences, the blanks being filled to suit circumstances:--

"Our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on thee;...and absolve thee by the merits of his most holy sufferings. I, in virtue of the Apostolic power committed to me, absolve thee from all ...excesses, sins and crimes, that thou mayest have committed, however great and enormous they may be, and of whatever kind....I remit the pains thou wouldst have had to endure in purgatory....I restore thee to the innocence and purity of thy baptism, so that at the moment of death, the gates of the place of torment shall be shut against thee, and the gates of Paradise open to thee. And if thou shouldst live long, this grace [favor--indulgence] continueth unchangeable till the time of thy end. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. The brother John Tetzel, commissary, hath signed this with his own hand."

A scale of prices was so fixed as to draw heavily from the rich and yet not overlook and miss the pennies of the poorer. For instance, the royal crime against the laws of the Church, of marriage with a first cousin cost $5,000, while the terrible sin of wife-murder or parricide cost only $20."

Source

It would be nice to know I could buy my way into heaven.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TuxAme]

The Reformation was not a revolt against the Apostles, but a revolt against what the Church had become under 1500 years of men.

Exactly what did the Catholic Church become under "1500 years of men"? And why is it that Protestantism hasn't fallen into the same pit under 500 years of men?

 

[DeaconDean]

Exactly what did the Catholic Church become under "1500 years of men"? And why is it that Protestantism hasn't fallen into the same pit under 500 years of men?

I love these baited questions.

It is a fact of history that under the leadership of Leo X, anybody with enough money or the right political influence, could get appointed.

And it is also a fact of history that Leo X, spent the coffers upgrading.

Now lets add "indulgences".

History records that it had become "corrupt" and "greedy".

As to Protestantism? Who says it hasn't to some degree?

The difference is, what the Reformed Church in country "X" says, does not always apply to the Reformed Church in country "Y". That is the difference.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Albion]

Exactly what did the Catholic Church become under "1500 years of men"? And why is it that Protestantism hasn't fallen into the same pit under 500 years of men?

It is undeniable that many corruptions of doctrine and practice had entered into the church and become accepted by the leadership. The church was in need of reform.

As for your second question, you cannot compare apples to oranges--one denomination (RC) to all the non-Catholic denominations taken as if they were a single alternative. But if we do look at the range of these churches, yes, some have gone astray as well. That has given rise to newer reform movements, too.

 

[TuxAme]

It is undeniable that many corruptions of doctrine and practice had entered into the church and become accepted by the leadership. The church was in need of reform.

As for your second question, you cannot compare apples to oranges--one denomination (RC) to all the non-Catholic denominations taken as if they were a single alternative. But if we do look at the range of these churches, yes, some have gone astray as well. That has given rise to newer reform movements, too.

More like apple singular to apples plural. However, that does raise an interesting point. You consider Catholicism one "denomination", without regard to the differences between Latin, Eastern, and other Catholics. We're united in our beliefs, and the only thing that really separates us is tradition (little t).

Now, simply replace my broad term (Protestantism) with any particular denomination. I wasn't going to specifically call out Anglicans or Lutherans or Baptists because there's too many different beliefs being represented here to keep my question focused. If I mentioned Methodists, maybe an Episcopalian would say, "Yeah, 500 or so years of men ruined them, but the Episcopal Church remains strong". That wouldn't do me any good. Just plug your denomination into the equation and figure it out from there.

 

[Albion]

More like apple singular to apples plural. However, that does raise an interesting point. You consider Catholicism one "denomination", without regard to the differences between Latin, Eastern, and other Catholics. We're united in our beliefs, and the only thing that really separates us is tradition (little t).

I disagree. You already admit that you all are united in your beliefs, which you are required to do, because all are responsible to the Vatican. These are different rites, not separate and autonomous church bodies.

Now, simply replace my broad term (Protestantism) with any particular denomination. I wasn't going to specifically call out Anglicans or Lutherans or Baptists because there's too many different beliefs being represented here to keep my question focused. If I mentioned Methodists, maybe an Episcopalian would say, "Yeah, 500 or so years of men ruined them, but the Episcopal Church remains strong". That wouldn't do me any good. Just plug your denomination into the equation and figure it out from there.

I understand, but it's still the case that what Lutherans do and believe is wht that denomination does and they have no part in what, for example, the Salvation Army or the Amish believe or do, nor do they have a common history.

 

[TuxAme]

I love these baited questions.

It is a fact of history that under the leadership of Leo X, anybody with enough money or the right political influence, could get appointed.

And it is also a fact of history that Leo X, spent the coffers upgrading.

Now lets add "indulgences".

History records that it had become "corrupt" and "greedy".

As to Protestantism? Who says it hasn't to some degree?

The difference is, what the Reformed Church in country "X" says, does not always apply to the Reformed Church in country "Y". That is the difference.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Had Paul gone off and made his own Church because Peter didn't want to eat with gentiles, would we support him in that decision? Why divide the Church because of human failings? Especially when those failings have been rectified?

As we all know, the Reformation was about a lot more than indulgences and wrongfully made appointments.