Why we cannot accept the Reformation!

[JIMINZ]

You know, its really really funny that as recorded in Acts, from meeting in the upper room (Acts 2), to the first Apostolic Council in Acts 15.

Where did the church in Jerusalem come from?

Who built it?

And more importantly, who is the head cornerstone?

God Bless

Till all are one.

.
I find it rather odd, Peter according to some, was given the keys of the Kingdom, but he had his ministry to the Circumcision, (Jews) while Paul had his Ministry to the Uncircumcision, (Gentiles) and Peter ends up as the Pope of the whole shebang, when Paul went all over setting up Churches, can anyone explain that one?

 

[DeaconDean]

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,"
-Thomas Jefferson

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

.
I find it rather odd, Peter according to some, was given the keys of the Kingdom, but he had his ministry to the Circumcision, (Jews) while Paul had his Ministry to the Uncircumcision, (Gentiles) and Peter ends up as the Pope of the whole shebang, when Paul went all over setting up Churches, can anyone explain that one?

Do you know what Martin Luther said about "the keys"?

"The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have," #26

"Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure." #60

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Do you know what Martin Luther said about "the keys"?

"The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have," #26

"Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure." #60

God Bless

Till all are one.

Matthew 16:19?
Revelation 3:7?

 

[hedrick]

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 (as Protestantism since the reformation has proved). The reformation simply went too far.

That's not how the Reformers worked. That's an approach often called "solo scriptura." With the Reformers, anyone is free to call the Church to account based on Scripture, but the Church makes the assessment. Remember that both Lutheran and Reformed traditions are confessional, meaning that the Church adopts statements of faith that have some level of authority.

The fragmentation of the Church is really due to separation of church and State, which is later than the Reformation. When the State is no longer willing to enforce the unity of the Church, and the Church has fairly narrow standards for what is acceptable, you're guaranteed to have fragmentation. But during Luther and Calvin's time, the Church was reformed by territory.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's not how the Reformers worked. That's an approach often called "solo scriptura." With the Reformers, anyone is free to call the Church to account based on Scripture, but the Church makes the assessment. Remember that both Lutheran and Reformed traditions are confessional, meaning that the Church adopts statements of faith that have some level of authority.

The fragmentation of the Church is really due to separation of church and State, which is later than the Reformation. When the State is no longer willing to enforce the unity of the Church, and the Church has fairly narrow standards for what is acceptable, you're guaranteed to have fragmentation. But during Luther and Calvin's time, the Church was reformed by territory.

Can you point to any reformer who said we should sometimes submit to men rather than scripture? Or better yet, any part of the reformed or Lutheran confessions which state that the confessions themselves should be submitted to alongside scripture? I understand the so called distinction between sola and solo Scripture, but in reality it amounts to one side respecting the past voices of the Church more than the other. It doesn't amount to (as it seems to me) a tangible difference on the core principle of Scripture alone being the thing we listen to before all other sources. What does that mean? That means the ultimate supremacy of the individual reading the bible to which no Protestant has the right to say they should listen to the voice of another if they think that other contradicts divine truth.

An example, someone reads the bible and comes to a conclusion that is different from yourself. You explain that the bible really means this. Now lets assume you are right but the person still objects to what you are saying and believes they have apprehended the text more. Who does this person listen to in this situation? On a strictly sola scriptura basis, he cannot listen to you since that would be to put you before the bible. He ought listen to his own interpretation rather than another's.

Now I wouldn't say you are wrong about the enforcement of religion on the people being a factor of division but that doesn't dismiss the notion that scripture released from the context of Church authority played a significant role in the types of Christianity that are too numerous to mention today. The reformers in doing away with Church authority had to embrace individual authority and we see the results of that today.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What is your opinion regarding Augustine of Hippo?

I like Augustine despite his flaws.

 

[hedrick]

Can you point to any reformer who said we should sometimes submit to men rather than scripture? Or better yet, any part of the reformed or Lutheran confessions which state that the confessions themselves should be submitted to alongside scripture?

Here's a good article on the relationship between Scripture and Church among the Reformers. Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes, by Keith A. Mathison. The author represents the conservative Reformed tradition. The Reformers agreed with the older Catholic concept that Scripture should be interpreted within the tradition. However they believed that the Catholic tradition had departed from the Apostolic tradition on which it was supposed to be based. I claim that the disagreement wasn't so much about sola scriptura as whether the Church's tradition could drift away from the truth.

Despite the attacks on the liberal Protestant tradition in that article, liberal Protestantism also interprets Scripture within the tradition. The main differences is that liberal Protestantism is more willing to accept development in the tradition. Here's a good paper describing the conservative and liberal meanings of confessionalism: http://presbyterian.ca/wp-content/uploads/pcc_confessing_the_faith_today_2003.pdf

When you leave the parts of Protestantism that are most directly based on the Reformers' theology, you may encounter a more radical rejection of tradition.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here's a good article on the relationship between Scripture and Church among the Reformers. Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes, by Keith A. Mathison. The author represents the conservative Reformed tradition. The Reformers agreed with the older Catholic concept that Scripture should be interpreted within the tradition. However they believed that the Catholic tradition had departed from the Apostolic tradition on which it was supposed to be based. I claim that the disagreement wasn't so much about sola scriptura as whether the Church's tradition could drift away from the truth.

Despite the attacks on the liberal Protestant tradition in that article, liberal Protestantism also interprets Scripture within the tradition. The main differences is that liberal Protestantism is more willing to accept development in the tradition. Here's a good paper describing the conservative and liberal meanings of confessionalism: http://presbyterian.ca/wp-content/uploads/pcc_confessing_the_faith_today_2003.pdf

When you leave the parts of Protestantism that are most directly based on the Reformers' theology, you may encounter a more radical rejection of tradition.

I am aware of these distinctions between the magisterial reformers and the radical reformers. I remain unconvinced of a distinctive difference in the ultimate emphasis of the reformation, the call to trust in the bible alone. The question I have asked remains unanswered, within Protestantism generally, is it permissible to submit to another persons' interpretation of the scripture rather than one's own interpretation of the scripture? I don't think so, this is how Luther justified his own rebellion from the papacy because he could not be convinced that he was wrong and therefore he would not submit. This principle must surely apply to everyone regardless of who they are and not just Luther or else the very idea upon which the Protestant reformation is based on has no validity.

I am quite willing to admit the reformers didn't throw out everything before them and gave some respect to the tradition before them (except for Medieval theology), yet that respect remains just that. It can never be a source of authority for them since that remains in the scripture alone.

 

[hedrick]

I am aware of these distinctions between the magisterial reformers and the radical reformers. I remain unconvinced of a distinctive difference in the ultimate emphasis of the reformation, the call to trust in the bible alone. The question I have asked remains unanswered, within Protestantism generally, is it permissible to submit to another persons' interpretation of the scripture rather than one's own interpretation of the scripture? I don't think so, this is how Luther justified his own rebellion from the papacy because he could not be convinced that he was wrong and therefore he would not submit. This principle must surely apply to everyone regardless of who they are and not just Luther or else the very idea upon which the Protestant reformation is based on has no validity.

I am quite willing to admit the reformers didn't throw out everything before them and gave some respect to the tradition before them (except for Medieval theology), yet that respect remains just that. It can never be a source of authority for them since that remains in the scripture alone.

Even in the Catholic tradition there's an understanding that you shouldn't violate your conscience. (See, for example, the section in the CCC starting at 1776.) Should Athanasius have given in when he was (temporarily) pronounced wrong? Generally traditional Reformed Christians are committed to interpreting Scripture in accordance with the confessions. I think in the end if someone is convinced that the Church is wrong, they have to follow their conscience, but we are supposed to be instructed and guided by the tradition.

The Reformation, however, was not the act of individuals, but was the church in a region committing to it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

can anyone explain that one?

Different traditions not from Scripture, naturally.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I like Augustine despite his flaws.

?
.
I love Jesus. No flaws.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

?
.
I love Jesus. No flaws.

What does this have to do with anything? The question was about Augustine who as a man was obviously flawed. Do you have some objection to liking Augustine?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Even in the Catholic tradition there's an understanding that you shouldn't violate your conscience. (See, for example, the section in the CCC starting at 1776.) Should Athanasius have given in when he was (temporarily) pronounced wrong? Generally traditional Reformed Christians are committed to interpreting Scripture in accordance with the confessions. I think in the end if someone is convinced that the Church is wrong, they have to follow their conscience, but we are supposed to be instructed and guided by the tradition.

The Reformation, however, was not the act of individuals, but was the church in a region committing to it.

There are many examples where one was right against many, also many examples where many were right against one. Arius should have submitted to Nicaea shouldn't he? He certainty would have been better off for having done so. The problem with Protestantism is that it cannot allow that, the individual's conscience with regards to the scripture trumps all other sources so that one cannot be allowed to submit to a man because the word of God is superior to man. Never mind the fact that the individual themselves is still human and therefore subject to limitation and fault.

I don't see in Luther any particular commitment to his Church which he discarded and dismissed the moment it excommunicated him. I compare him with Maximos the Confessor who was persecuted by his own Church but never by his own words sought to separate from or make his own body. The Church remembers him as a Saint for his unfair treatment by her own hands and embraces his theology as correct. Luther was committed to the bible and his own movement, not the Church he came out of.

 

[JIMINZ]

Different traditions not from Scripture, naturally.

.
I would just call it, Indoctrination into Doctrinal Traditions, not found in Scripture.

 

[DeaconDean]

What does this have to do with anything? The question was about Augustine who as a man was obviously flawed. Do you have some objection to liking Augustine?

I like St. Augustine.

Wise man.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Generally traditional Reformed Christians are committed to interpreting Scripture in accordance with the confessions. I think in the end if someone is convinced that the Church is wrong, they have to follow their conscience,

That is why I like the 1925 Baptist CoF.

There is that clause that says you can agree to all, or some, or none. But and it does not disqualify you from being a Baptist. You must let the Holy Spirit and your conscious lead you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The question was about Augustine who as a man was obviously flawed. Do you have some objection to liking Augustine?

Well, you said (or someone said) he had obvious flaws, thus why trust him ? There's no need to.

Instead, trust Jesus, He Who Has No Flaws.

Doesn't that make simple sense ?

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, you said (or someone said) he had obvious flaws, thus why trust him ? There's no need to.

Instead, trust Jesus, He Who Has No Flaws.

Doesn't that make simple sense ?

Alright, lets take your words just "as is".

There are 66 books in the Bible.

That being said, if St. Augustine was/is flawed, then by yourself a "Red-Letter Bible", tear out every page that isn't "red".

What would you have?

Fact is, 66% of the New Testament was written by one man, who, had flaws. The Apostle Paul.

It is recorded in Acts that Paul disobeyed God (the Holy Spirit) at least twice.

Augustine had flaws, Paul had flaws.

Both men, as you said "had obvious flaws, thus why trust" them?

Likewise, you must tear out 1 & 2 Peter because not only did Peter directly disobey God three times, but, was also guilty of being a "hypocrite".

I am not aware of any "Red-Letter" parts in the OT. And by the same token, there are very few parts after the Gospels, that are "Red-Letter".

If your going to put such emphasis on following on Jesus, then from Genesis to Malachi, and Romans to Jude, you must tear out those parts because each and every one of the writers of the bible were "flawed" men.

And here again how do we know the "Red" parts are correct?

But lets take your statement a bit further, why trust your Pastor, isn't he a flawed man?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well, you said (or someone said) he had obvious flaws, thus why trust him ? There's no need to.

Instead, trust Jesus, He Who Has No Flaws.

Doesn't that make simple sense ?

Why trust Paul or Peter, they had flaws? Let's trust Jesus right? But how do we know about Jesus without Paul, Peter or the rest of the Apostles? What a dilemma you have, trusting in a man you can literally know nothing about because we have his story from men who were not perfect.