• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why we cannot accept the Reformation!

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sometimes I am contentious on here just to provoke and see what type of reaction I get. It is in these times that I think some of the true beliefs come out. If this is truly what you believe, then all pretense of accepting Orthodoxy and Catholicism as Christian groups has been removed.

My wife had an uncle who was a Baptist minister. I had many talks about theology with him and his wife, carefully avoiding any contentious subjects. I thought we acknowledged each other as fellow Christians. Right before he died he sent me some vitriolic Anti-Catholic pamphlets and I realized it had all been just a pretense for trying to evangelize me out of the harlot of Babylon. He had the same Landmark Baptist beliefs that you have been denying while citing on this thread. Maybe this has made me scarred towards this attitude; but now whenever I state a Christian belief in front of his wife, I can see that she sees the need to reply and subtly assert her superiority in true belief. It saddens me that she cannot just drop the bias and honestly look at my wife, her niece, and myself as fellow Christians.

I'm only going to tell you, and everybody else for that matter, one last time:

"I AM NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVERY BEEN A LANDMARK BAPTIST!"

Any further comments to the contrary shall be deemed as goading.

Got it? Understand?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why do I have to keep repeating myself over and over again?

Persecutions of the Donatists certainly did start under Diocletian. Every single article I linked shows that, and I did not deny it.

However, it did not stop with Diocletian. It continued, by the Catholic church until after Augustine's time.

But that is neither here or there. People have missed the other historical point that perhaps the Donatists were objecting to. And it is/was, priests who recanted, went back to paganism, then came back to the "church". The Donatists tried a sort of "Reform" of the church way back when.

So persecution started around AD 370. And like the article I linked said, even by the end of Augustine's time, the issue was still unresolved. The Donatists simply "faded" out.

Jump ahead 600 years, a bishop and two representatives from the "Orthodox" group when to help with some "Reform" (1048). But I guess in everybodys hatred of what I posted, that link was overlooked too. (Not surprising)

Then we jump ahead 200 years, what happened then, "Reform" in the form of putting "Bibles" in the hands of the common man, in the common language. How did that go?

Fact is, and it is true no matter what you say. The common man back in those days, was not very educated. So how many people knew enough to even understand "Latin"? And I know your going to say I'm grasping at straws. But you know what? I don't care.

Which brings us up to Martin Luther.

And there is nothing that can be said to change what history has recorded about the Catholic churches history. Yes, it is long, but it is also bloody.

Now I do, believe with all my heart, that billions and billions of people have come to salvation in and through the Catholic church.

But there are some on the forums, who won't admit the same thing for Protestant groups.

But it still does not matter, the "seeds" for the Reformation can be linked back as far as the Donatists.

History has shown that from the end of the 2nd century, there have been attempts at "Reform" whether small or large.

And if you really want to get to the "nittty-grity", one of the earliest known "Reforms" in the church was how to separate Jewish Christians, and Gentile Christians.

But even at that, I was even castigated for suggesting that!

I really don't give a darn if like what I say or not. I don't give a darn if you disagree or not. History shows what I say.

By the time of the Reformation, the "state" of the Catholic church was such as:

"Keep in mind too, that for some time the Church had been seen as an institution plagued by internal power struggles (at one point in the late 1300s and 1400s, church was ruled by three Popes simultaneously). Popes and Cardinals often lived more like kings than spiritual leaders. Popes claimed temporal (political) as well as spiritual power. They commanded armies, made political alliances and enemies, and, sometimes, even waged war. Simony (the selling of Church offices) and nepotism (favoritism based on family relationships) were rampant. Clearly, if the Pope was concentrating on these worldly issues, there wasn't as much time left for caring for the souls of the faithful. The corruption of the Church was well known, and several attempts had been made to reform the Church (notably by John Wyclif and Jan Hus), but none of these efforts successfully challenged Church practice until Martin Luther's actions in the early 1500s."

Source

I thank God for the Reformation!

It was sorely needed.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Doug Melven
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And here is a little FYI for those who don't know what a Landmark Baptist is:

"Those essentials are 1) church succession—a landmark Baptist church traces its “lineage” back to the time of the New Testament, usually to Jesus’ calling of the disciples in Galilee; 2) a visible church—the only church is a local (Baptist) body of believers; there is no such thing as a universal Body of Christ; 3) opposition to “pedobaptism” (sprinkling of infants) and “alien immersion” (any baptism not performed under the auspices of a landmark Baptist church)—all such baptisms are null and void.

Another corollary belief is that only faithful landmark Baptists will comprise the Bride of Christ. Other Christians (non-Baptists) will either be the guests or the servants at the marriage supper of the Lamb. These other Christians are called the “family of God” or sometimes the “kingdom of God.” So, in heaven will be all the redeemed (the “family of God”), but only those who have been duly baptized by immersion (in an independent Baptist church) will have the special honor of being the Bride of Christ. The landmark Baptists use the story of the choosing of Isaac’s wife to illustrate God’s choosing of Christ’s Bride (Genesis 24)."

Wikipedia

The above article said "alien immersion". Evidently, some are ignorant of just what that means precisely.

If I was a Landmarker, and I was baptized into a Landmark church in "Anytown USA". If I visited another Landmark Baptist church in "Everycity, USA, by Landmarkism, I am a visitor, and not allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper at that church, because my baptism is not of that particular church. I have an "alien immersion".

I am a Southern Baptist. Which means, that if I'm on vacation and visit another Baptist church, I can participate in the Lord's Supper. I can join that church (or any other Baptist church for that matter) and not have to be "re-baptized". Heck, I could join a Pentecostal, Charasmatic, or even a Presbyterian church, and not be "re-baptized", and likewise, we would not require the same form the aforementioned groups. I personally have seen only maybe 5 people in my lifetime that come from other groups/denominations that were "re-baptized" and then it was only because they requested it.

FYI: Baptists with a few exceptions, do not "re-baptize" except for a few very certain circumstances. Which I have already alluded to.

So, to continue to refer to me as a "Landmarker" is a slap in the face and I shall not tolerate it.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,739
1,099
Carmel, IN
✟732,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm only going to tell you, and everybody else for that matter, one last time:

"I AM NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVERY BEEN A LANDMARK BAPTIST!"

Any further comments to the contrary shall be deemed as goading.

Got it? Understand?

God Bless

Till all are one.
Understood. Perhaps to reduce the rhetoric and because of the pending anniversary, we should take this thread back to closer to the OP and discuss the 95 Theses. This is a long read; but certainly pertinent to a spirit of reform.
From the public domain at Project Gutenberg.

" DISPUTATION OF DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER
ON THE POWER AND EFFICACY OF INDULGENCES

OCTOBER 31, 1517

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place.
Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller
the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite
certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high sounding promise of release
from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way,
within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the
Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of
pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to
Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy
confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised,
for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and
[the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the
indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the
money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through
them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should
go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom
certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake
his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be
preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of
God--this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against
the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross
of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or
even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit:--"Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just;
the latter is most trivial."

83. Again:--"Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the
endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again:--"What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory
the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again:--"Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of
indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again:--"Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with
his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87. Again:--"What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full
remission and participation?"

88. Again:--"What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow
on every believer these remissions and participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to makeChristians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace."
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Doug Melven
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,796
8,174
PA
Visit site
✟1,184,299.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
AMBASSADOR HAT

D79272E5-E5A2-44BD-880A-ADD0C16EC2F8.jpeg

Please remember to keep the conversation civil.

While is not a flame for members to disagree with each other, posters here must treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY when you disagree.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,773
4,091
✟790,516.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
As I have said many times, if the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox would ever get back together and become one Church again, then the Protestants would be in a much weaker position. Having the Oriental Orthodox join in with the RCC and the EOC would put the Protestant community in an even weaker position. However, as long as the RCC and the EOC both claim that they are the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind, this kind of gives the Protestants a reason to stand on the sidelines, so to speak. Who are they to believe? If indeed the Protestants are wrong, as both the RCC and the EOC believe, and they should join the Church founded by Jesus, how are they to determine whether the RCC or the EOC is that Church? It would seem that each of them can make a relatively even case to be the Church founded by Jesus. Anyway, logic dictates that the RCC and the EOC will not be merging anytime soon, so I guess the Protestant community will continue to sit on the sidelines and not feel any undue pressure to join any of the three Apostolic Churches.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As I have said many times, if the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox would ever get back together and become one Church again, then the Protestants would be in a much weaker position. Having the Oriental Orthodox join in with the RCC and the EOC would put the Protestant community in an even weaker position. However, as long as the RCC and the EOC both claim that they are the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind, this kind of gives the Protestants a reason to stand on the sidelines, so to speak. Who are they to believe? If indeed the Protestants are wrong, as both the RCC and the EOC believe, and they should join the Church founded by Jesus, how are they to determine whether the RCC or the EOC is that Church? It would seem that each of them can make a relatively even case to be the Church founded by Jesus. Anyway, logic dictates that the RCC and the EOC will not be merging anytime soon, so I guess the Protestant community will continue to sit on the sidelines and not feel any undue pressure to join any of the three Apostolic Churches.

Really, I do agree in a certain way.

I read an article recently which "Orthodox" was originally called "Ancient Catholic Orthodox".

I'm not here to debate whether it is true or whether it is false.

I only wanted to point out, that, since the Great Schism in 1058, Orthodoxy has been a "stand alone" (please don't hate me, but it really is the best word I can think of) "denomination".

Yes, it is also true that it took perhaps 500 years for the Catholics to come to an agreement with Lutheranism and consider them back "in communion".

And Basil, your right, how will it take for Catholicism and Orthodoxy to come to an agreement and consider each other "in communion"?

Basil, please understand, I sincerely mean no disrespect.

And even then, I still don't believe that Protestantism would ever reconcile as certain "doctrines" would separate us forever.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
9,066
4,763
✟359,498.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
As I have said many times, if the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox would ever get back together and become one Church again, then the Protestants would be in a much weaker position. Having the Oriental Orthodox join in with the RCC and the EOC would put the Protestant community in an even weaker position. However, as long as the RCC and the EOC both claim that they are the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind, this kind of gives the Protestants a reason to stand on the sidelines, so to speak. Who are they to believe? If indeed the Protestants are wrong, as both the RCC and the EOC believe, and they should join the Church founded by Jesus, how are they to determine whether the RCC or the EOC is that Church? It would seem that each of them can make a relatively even case to be the Church founded by Jesus. Anyway, logic dictates that the RCC and the EOC will not be merging anytime soon, so I guess the Protestant community will continue to sit on the sidelines and not feel any undue pressure to join any of the three Apostolic Churches.

If the Protestant is convinced of the need for an Apostolic Church they would be best picking the one they feel is correct as it is better to belong to one of the historic communities than none at all. The division between EOC and RCC is not an excuse to remain Protestant but should be a motivation to learn and pray as much as possible to decipher which one has remained faithful to the deposit.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,465
20,755
Orlando, Florida
✟1,512,901.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Because the reformers innovated so much and took it upon themselves to reconstruct what they thought was a "biblical" Christianity I cannot accept the reformation since at it's core it is a rejection of the historical church before it.

As if the "historical church" before it didn't have more than a few manmade traditions and eccentricities.

I cannot accept the reformation's premise that each man is their own ultimate authority on the bible because that is not how Christianity works nor is how it remains a united entity

Good thing that's not what the reformers taught.
In rejecting tradition, Protestantism accepted innovation at every level and continues to do so to this day.

Any other subject, and the above would be obviously ridiculous. We accept innovations in other aspects of our lives when it proves useful... why is religion exempt?
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
9,066
4,763
✟359,498.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
As if the "historical church" before it didn't have more than a few manmade traditions and eccentricities.

I'm willing to grant there were many developments within the Church, some necessary, others not so necessary. Yet the Reformers in the end utlimately distanced themselves from having an historic connection other than in ideology to the Church that proceeded them. It was with the Reformation that communion, sharing the same Eucharist became not so important, nice to have but ultimately unnecessary.

Good thing that's not what the reformers taught.

If Scripture is the final authority, to which nothing else can be considered before, then ultimately, taken to it's final conclusion this makes the individual the absolute authority in determining the faith. Lutherans can make arguments regarding why their interpretation of the bible might be right, but they can never compel people to be Lutheran. One could theoretically accept Lutheranism and start their own Church independent of the established bodies. Lutherans cannot insist to other Lutherans that they must adhere to the confessions of the Church if they think the bible contradicts them, in which case whose authority is the individual who dissagrees better off submitting to? Let's assume the Lutheran confessions are right, would not this person be better off submitting to them than to submit to their own ideas concerning the bible which are wrong? Yet since scripture is the final authority there is nothing the Lutheran can really do to convince that individual they should submit to the creeds. They have to join another Church instead of remain faithful to their original one.

Any other subject, and the above would be obviously ridiculous. We accept innovations in other aspects of our lives when it proves useful... why is religion exempt?

It depends on the innovation. During the fourth century the Church unanimously accepted the Monastic movement which lead to some of the greatest examples of faith, learning and devotion that the Church has ever known. During the 16th century in response to Monks who did not carry out their duty the Reformers largely rejected the Monastic movement on the grounds that it implies that we have to work for our salvation. You might say there are Lutheran Monastaries today, true, but they abide in the Spirit of Luther and not in the spirit of the original Monastics who did not accept the Faith/works dichotomy.

Some other points of innovation is the tossing out of a need for historic communion/Apostolic succession. Only Anglicanism recognises that and some Lutherans (though their communion with Lutherans who do not have an Apostolic succession makes them suspect in my opinion).

So innovation is not necessarily bad, yet in the case of the reformation i would say it was. You will disagree and say these were good measures and we could debate that but we both agree that innovation is not necessarily good.
 
Upvote 0

iwbswiaihl2

Newbie
Aug 18, 2007
1,694
259
✟47,887.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?

Where does it say the RCC is the faith of the Apostles or anyone else in the NT?

And keeping the faith is keeping within the teachings of the NT doctrines that are found in them. Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and that He was raised from the dead as in Romans 8:8-10 is keeping the faith. Your explanation is a strawman to fit your beliefs, not one taught anywhere in the Bible.
It is for sure that RCC was not the first church built on the apostles teachings and the Lord is the one who saved every person that gets saved, therefore the church is built by Him and on what He did. It is after all, His body in the world today. We have the scriptures and as long as we witness its testimonies we are building on that same foundation and keeping the faith, to add traditions that are not in the NT is heresy. To claim that the RCC is the universal church is opinion to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iwbswiaihl2

Newbie
Aug 18, 2007
1,694
259
✟47,887.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As I have said many times, if the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox would ever get back together and become one Church again, then the Protestants would be in a much weaker position. Having the Oriental Orthodox join in with the RCC and the EOC would put the Protestant community in an even weaker position. However, as long as the RCC and the EOC both claim that they are the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind, this kind of gives the Protestants a reason to stand on the sidelines, so to speak. Who are they to believe? If indeed the Protestants are wrong, as both the RCC and the EOC believe, and they should join the Church founded by Jesus, how are they to determine whether the RCC or the EOC is that Church? It would seem that each of them can make a relatively even case to be the Church founded by Jesus. Anyway, logic dictates that the RCC and the EOC will not be merging anytime soon, so I guess the Protestant community will continue to sit on the sidelines and not feel any undue pressure to join any of the three Apostolic Churches.
That will never happen regardless whether these two reconcile or not, you are living in a dream world or your beliefs. Neither of these two groups are ever mentioned in the scriptures as being the church to follow. If so, show the scriptures, after all, we know that John was the Baptist:amen::clap::oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
30,317
13,962
73
✟423,613.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Where does it say the RCC is the faith of the Apostles or anyone else in the NT?

And keeping the faith is keeping within the teachings of the NT doctrines that are found in them. Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and that He was raised from the dead as in Romans 8:8-10 is keeping the faith. Your explanation is a strawman to fit your beliefs, not one taught anywhere in the Bible.
It is for sure that RCC was not the first church built on the apostles teachings and the Lord is the one who saved every person that gets saved, therefore the church is built by Him and on what He did. It is after all, His body in the world today. We have the scriptures and as long as we witness its testimonies we are building on that same foundation and keeping the faith, to add traditions that are not in the NT is heresy. To claim that the RCC is the universal church is opinion to say the least.

To say that any one branch or denomination of Christianity is the universal church in its entirety is presumption in the extreme.
 
Upvote 0

iwbswiaihl2

Newbie
Aug 18, 2007
1,694
259
✟47,887.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To say that any one branch or denomination of Christianity is the universal church in its entirety is presumption in the extreme.

So, what is your point, was you agreeing or disagreeing? I didn't mention any one church as the universal church, that would be the body of Christ is the universal church would be my answer though!
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
30,317
13,962
73
✟423,613.00
Faith
Non-Denom
So, what is your point, was you agreeing or disagreeing? I didn't mention any one church as the universal church, that would be the body of Christ is the universal church would be my answer though!

I was simply enlarging your point which was "To claim that the RCC is the universal church is opinion to say the least."

This is not merely true for the RCC, but also for other branches and denominations of Christianity which make the same claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iwbswiaihl2
Upvote 0

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,773
4,091
✟790,516.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
Really, I do agree in a certain way.

I read an article recently which "Orthodox" was originally called "Ancient Catholic Orthodox".

I'm not here to debate whether it is true or whether it is false.

I only wanted to point out, that, since the Great Schism in 1058, Orthodoxy has been a "stand alone" (please don't hate me, but it really is the best word I can think of) "denomination".

Yes, it is also true that it took perhaps 500 years for the Catholics to come to an agreement with Lutheranism and consider them back "in communion".

And Basil, your right, how will it take for Catholicism and Orthodoxy to come to an agreement and consider each other "in communion"?

Basil, please understand, I sincerely mean no disrespect.

And even then, I still don't believe that Protestantism would ever reconcile as certain "doctrines" would separate us forever.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Thanks for the nice reply. Your post was fine, so I am not sure why you said that you meant no disrespect. Any, I think we are pretty much in agreement. I did not mean to infer that if the RCC and the EOC (and the Oriental Orthodox) were to merge that all or even most Protestants would join the new Church. However, I do believe that this would cause a significant number of Protestants to ponder the situation and maybe 10-20% might join, especially if their spouses were already Catholics or Orthodox. As to what it would take for the RCC and EOC to merge, I have thought about this for decades and can only come up with one possible cause. If Christianity continues to lose adherents in the West and things get so bad that the very existence of the Christian Church as we know it were to be in danger, then maybe the EOC and RCC would merge in an attempt to save the faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeaconDean
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,739
1,099
Carmel, IN
✟732,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If reform is defined so oddly, then what is a counter-reformation?
What is wrong with the definition of reform that he posted? It seems to me to be the standard definition of what reform is all about.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
30,317
13,962
73
✟423,613.00
Faith
Non-Denom
What is wrong with the definition of reform that he posted? It seems to me to be the standard definition of what reform is all about.

To reform, in its most direct sense, is to form something again. It is like a blob of clay. A sculptor can form it into a statue and then decide that there are aspects he doesn't like about it. At that point he can re-form it to improve it. Whether or not it is actually improved may be a matter of artistic opinion, but the re-forming, in and of itself, carries neither positive nor negative implications.

Likewise, if after the artist re-forms his statue and another artist comes along and dislikes the statue he can counter-reform the statue. Again, the counter-reformation may be viewed as positive or negative, depending on various criteria, but, in and of itself, it carries neither positive nor negative implications.
 
Upvote 0

tz620q

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,739
1,099
Carmel, IN
✟732,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To reform, in its most direct sense, is to form something again. It is like a blob of clay. A sculptor can form it into a statue and then decide that there are aspects he doesn't like about it. At that point he can re-form it to improve it. Whether or not it is actually improved may be a matter of artistic opinion, but the re-forming, in and of itself, carries neither positive nor negative implications.

Likewise, if after the artist re-forms his statue and another artist comes along and dislikes the statue he can counter-reform the statue. Again, the counter-reformation may be viewed as positive or negative, depending on various criteria, but, in and of itself, it carries neither positive nor negative implications.
I think the definition given presupposes that there is a need felt by the artist for a change and that there will be a conscious effort on the part of the artist to reform the statue into something that conforms better to what he likes. So in that sense, it is an improvement from disorder to order (as long as one accepts the sculptors view of what that order should be). So from the artists viewpoint, the reform is always positive. Looking at it from outside yields nothing other than differences in opinion. If I were an artist molding clay and left for the night and came back the next morning and another person had remolded my statue, I would not consider that a positive change.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0