Why we cannot accept the Reformation!

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

No, the dilemma is in (and for) anyone who trusts flesh.
Yahweh says He curses that.
Trust Yahweh.
Trust Yeshua.

 

[hedrick]

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.

I think the question of when to remain within a church is one of judgement. Where possible we should opt for unity. But Luther was ordained. He had a responsibility to God for people in his care. So in addition to his obligations to the Church, he had an obligation not to let his people be misled.

I don't know what Maximos' choices were, so I can't judge his decisions.

This was obviously a question of concern to the Reformers. Their conclusion was that the problems with the Catholic Church were basic enough that it had ceased being a true Church at all. It neither proclaimed the Gospel nor administered the true sacraments. I don't take that view of the modern Catholic Church, but I might have in Luther's situation.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

How can we know about Christ well -- read fully through one or several of the 4 gospels, which are not thought to have been directly written by their titled namesakes. (or if you think they are unreliable accounts, please reconsider by researching on why they are thought to be reliable)

It's actually helpful even for people that have read through the gospels more than once to do so again at times, because of the living quality of His words in them, that continue to teach us in new ways even into old age, if we will listen to Him.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, the dilemma is in (and for) anyone who trusts flesh.
Yahweh says He curses that.
Trust Yahweh.
Trust Yeshua.

Right, trust Jesus and no one else. That means Paul, Peter, the rest of the Apostles and the deposit they left cannot be trusted. Throw out your man made bible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm often fascinated by how little understanding there is about the Reformation and the history of the period, by both Protestants and Catholics. The irony is that often both seem to agree to a common false narrative: that the Reformation was about protesting and splitting away from Rom/the Catholic Church. It wasn't. The Reformation was not a protest against Rome, or against the Catholic Church; in fact the "protest" in Protestant refers to a specific historical event, the Protestation at Speyer, in which a number of German princes protested the decision of the 2nd Imperial Diet of Speyer.

Indeed, we Lutherans brought forward and explained our doctrine at the Diet of Augsburg, in this text known as the Augustana or Augsburg Confession we confess:

"This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - Augsburg Confession, Article XXI, 5-15

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

How can we know about Christ well -- read fully through one or several of the 4 gospels, which are not thought to have been directly written by their titled namesakes. (or if you think they are unreliable accounts, please reconsider by researching on why they are thought to be reliable)

It's actually helpful even for people that have read through the gospels more than once to do so again at times, because of the living quality of His words in them, that continue to teach us in new ways even into old age, if we will listen to Him.

I don't think the Gospels are unreliable. my point was that in dismissing men because they are flawed (like Augustine) and saying we should love Jesus alone and like Jesus alone is to know nothing about him since the testimony about Jesus is received from men, who were flawed. It's an absurd position but imagine if Yeshuaslavejeff was in the first century and heard the Gospel from Peter. He could not trust Peter since Peter made a lot of mistakes and had alot of flaws, he must therefore ignore Peter because Peter is merely a man. See the problem in such a position?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think the question of when to remain within a church is one of judgement. Where possible we should opt for unity. But Luther was ordained. He had a responsibility to God for people in his care. So in addition to his obligations to the Church, he had an obligation not to let his people be misled.

I don't know what Maximos' choices were, so I can't judge his decisions.

This was obviously a question of concern to the Reformers. Their conclusion was that the problems with the Catholic Church were basic enough that it had ceased being a true Church at all. It neither proclaimed the Gospel nor administered the true sacraments. I don't take that view of the modern Catholic Church, but I might have in Luther's situation.

Ordination is a two way streak, it does not dissolve one's responsibility to the higher authorities of the Church which ordained him in the first place. One could not claim that their ordination by an Apostle in the first century is justification for breaking away and serving the laity more effectively and I would say the same of Luther. His demeanour towards the Church which reared him became increasingly ugly and vitriolic to such a degree as to firmly separate the two entities of Lutheranism and Catholicism (His movement being a restoration of the Gospel message and Catholicism being a bastion of Anti-Christ denying the true Gospel message according to Luther).

Corruption being as it was back then does not seem to me to be a good enough of an excuse to found one's own Church or movement because it sets up the principle (already common within Protestantism) that if we are unsatisfied with a body we can establish a newer and better one. I think that might be reflected in the division between Lutherans today, the ELCA which embraced liberalism and the LCMS which has remained loyal to Luther and his companions teachings.

As for Maximos the confessor, i find his example powerful because he like Luther questioned the highest religious authorities of the day. They like the Catholic Church of the 16th century encouraged him to submit to their decision because of their position but he didn't. He unlike Luther did not go out of his way to call the Patriarch Anti-Christ or start his own movement and it was his suffering at the hands of the Church he never denied that convinced that same Church to adopt his theology over that of the Monothelites. Maximos' is the example we should follow, rather than Luther.

 

[DeaconDean]

Ordination is a two way streak, it does not dissolve one's responsibility to the higher authorities of the Church which ordained him in the first place. One could not claim that their ordination by an Apostle in the first century is justification for breaking away and serving the laity more effectively and I would say the same of Luther. His demeanour towards the Church which reared him became increasingly ugly and vitriolic to such a degree as to firmly separate the two entities of Lutheranism and Catholicism (His movement being a restoration of the Gospel message and Catholicism being a bastion of Anti-Christ denying the true Gospel message according to Luther).

Corruption being as it was back then does not seem to me to be a good enough of an excuse to found one's own Church or movement because it sets up the principle (already common within Protestantism) that if we are unsatisfied with a body we can establish a newer and better one. I think that might be reflected in the division between Lutherans today, the ELCA which embraced liberalism and the LCMS which has remained loyal to Luther and his companions teachings.

As for Maximos the confessor, i find his example powerful because he like Luther questioned the highest religious authorities of the day. They like the Catholic Church of the 16th century encouraged him to submit to their decision because of their position but he didn't. He unlike Luther did not go out of his way to call the Patriarch Anti-Christ or start his own movement and it was his suffering at the hands of the Church he never denied that convinced that same Church to adopt his theology over that of the Monothelites. Maximos' is the example we should follow, rather than Luther.

I just don't see it that way.

I have been ordained both as a deacon and an elder.

My church also licensed me to preach.

If my church started selling indulgences granting any past, present, and future sins be forgiven.

Or, that only certain individuals have the right to forgive sins.

Or that the masses have no right to access to the word of God.

I'd do just like Luther.

You cannot say that there was no good that came out of the Reformation.

And here is another point you should consider.

"To the Reformers in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church was still "the church", and it only needed reforming. They sought to reform a church which they regarded as the true body of Christ. They assumed that both the baptism, and the ordination of the Roman Church were still valid. Neither John Calvin nor any other Reformers denounced their Catholic baptisms."

"Are Baptists Reformed?" By: Lawrence A. Justice

But if you really want to get down to the "brass tacks", the seeds for the Reformation were planted way back as far as AD 370. (Ever heard of the Donatists?)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's worth noting that in Scandinavia, they adopted the Evangelical reforms firmly within the established ecclesiastical structures. The historic episcopate retained in the transitions in Sweden (which included Finland at the time) and the Kalmar Union (Denmark-Norway). As such the Church of Sweden, Church of Denmark, Church of Norway, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland retain the historic episcopate.

The same is less true in, for example, what was the Holy Roman Empire where--for example--we have to deal with the immense complexities of church-state politics (that Albrecht of Mainz had in whose diocese was Wittenberg had actively supported Johan Tetzel; and Albrecht was politically important as an elector-prince of the empire certainly makes for some significant mess).

It is critical to understand that Luther established no church and set forth no polity--and neither do our Confessions. Lutheranism is a theology, a confession, a way of being a catholic Christian and confessing the holy catholic faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I just don't see it that way.

I have been ordained both as a deacon and an elder.

My church also licensed me to preach.

If my church started selling indulgences granting any past, present, and future sins be forgiven.

Or, that only certain individuals have the right to forgive sins.

Or that the masses have no right to access to the word of God.

I'd do just like Luther.

You cannot say that there was no good that came out of the Reformation.

And here is another point you should consider.

"To the Reformers in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church was still "the church", and it only needed reforming. They sought to reform a church which they regarded as the true body of Christ. They assumed that both the baptism, and the ordination of the Roman Church were still valid. Neither John Calvin nor any other Reformers denounced their Catholic baptisms."

"Are Baptists Reformed?" By: Lawrence A. Justice

But if you really want to get down to the "brass tacks", the seeds for the Reformation were planted way back as far as AD 370. (Ever heard of the Donatists?)

God Bless

Till all are one.

I wouldn't say there was no good to come out of the reformation, but I do not believe the principles of Protestantism were good in and of themselves. The good of the reformation is that it forced the Catholic Church to confront it's inner corruption and reform itself, resulting in such figures as Francis DE Sales, the Jesuits and Teresa of Avila.

You say you would do just like Luther and leave the Church, which is you prerogative but I think it shows just how much importance you place on visible communion, which is little. That is a result of the reformation in which the will of the individual is put at the forefront to the degree in which the Church if it disagrees with the individual can have absolutely no power over that individual even if the Church is right. Church discipline then, for all practical purposes within Protestantism, has no weight behind it because there is no force behind a punishment. Excommunication would mean little since the individual is part of the invisible Church regardless of their communion to a visible one.

As for your point about the Church baptisms being accepted, that doesn't mean the reformers accepted the Roman Catholic Church as the Church principally because it is because of the baptiser that the person is sanctified but because of God in the baptism that sanctifies the baptised. As long as the baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is still accepted.

Can you find any quote from Luther saying the Catholic Church is still the Church? I imagine it that a difficult position for one who is seperated from it and has set up his own communion.

We've already had a discussion about the reformation starting that early. I find it absurd to think the Donatists were in any way right or esteemable or some form of Proto-reformation.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's worth noting that in Scandinavia, they adopted the Evangelical reforms firmly within the established ecclesiastical structures. The historic episcopate retained in the transitions in Sweden (which included Finland at the time) and the Kalmar Union (Denmark-Norway). As such the Church of Sweden, Church of Denmark, Church of Norway, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland retain the historic episcopate.

The same is less true in, for example, what was the Holy Roman Empire where--for example--we have to deal with the immense complexities of church-state politics (that Albrecht of Mainz had in whose diocese was Wittenberg had actively supported Johan Tetzel; and Albrecht was politically important as an elector-prince of the empire certainly makes for some significant mess).

It is critical to understand that Luther established no church and set forth no polity--and neither do our Confessions. Lutheranism is a theology, a confession, a way of being a catholic Christian and confessing the holy catholic faith.

-CryptoLutheran

I suppose you mean in the spiritual sense that Lutherans are carrying on the Church in it's invisible sense while obviously being a brand new physical organisation that did not exist prior to Luther. Because to me this claim makes little sense since we do not see Lutheranism before Luther firmly established himself as being against the Papacy and men and women began to follow his message. Certainty the bodies of Lutheranism and Catholicism are not united and Lutheranism can claim no historicity before the 16th century, so am I right that Lutherans would understand this as they are part of the Church invisible even if their appearance as the church visible is fairly New?

 

[DeaconDean]

We've already had a discussion about the reformation starting that early. I find it absurd to think the Donatists were in any way right or esteemable or some form of Proto-reformation.

But it does set forth the principle that any person, or any group that dared to stand up against the "Catholic" church, were to face persecution.

And even today, the mere mention of the name "John Calvin" incites much hatred among Catholics.

Scriptures tell us to be led by the Holy Spirit, not some "church".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

You say you would do just like Luther and leave the Church, which is you prerogative but I think it shows just how much importance you place on visible communion, which is little. That is a result of the reformation in which the will of the individual is put at the forefront to the degree in which the Church if it disagrees with the individual can have absolutely no power over that individual even if the Church is right.

Here again:

Romans 8:14

The "church" however you take that word, is led by men who are fallible. The Holy Spirit isn't.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here again:

Romans 8:14

The "church" however you take that word, is led by men who are fallible. The Holy Spirit isn't.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I would suggest that all men are fallible and therefore to take refuge in the scripture alone (in belief one has the spirit) is no solution since the individual themselves is fallible. The Apostles did not give us a command to dismiss those put in authority over us or else the Galatians, if they were sincerely convinced from the bible (which if literally interpreted is plausible) by certain preachers were justified. We know they were not and that we hope they listened to Saint Paul and submitted to his authority. The Holy Spirit works not only in the individual but also other people to bring about correction.

 

[DeaconDean]

As for your point about the Church baptisms being accepted, that doesn't mean the reformers accepted the Roman Catholic Church as the Church principally because it is because of the baptiser that the person is sanctified but because of God in the baptism that sanctifies the baptised. As long as the baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is still accepted.

Never said anything like that.

Only that they recognized the church, the "Catholic" church needed reforming.

Luther never started "Lutherianism".

I know of church called "Calvinist".

Or any church called "Zwinglyism".

But one can trace the roots of the Ana-Baptists almost back to the Donatists. Were they not "re-baptizers"?

Isn't that the meaning behind "Ana-Baptists"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Can you find any quote from Luther saying the Catholic Church is still the Church? I imagine it that a difficult position for one who is seperated from it and has set up his own communion.

How many centuries did it take for Catholicism to allow/say Lutherans were back "in communion"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

But it does set forth the principle that any person, or any group that dared to stand up against the "Catholic" church, were to face persecution.

And even today, the mere mention of the name "John Calvin" incites much hatred among Catholics.

Scriptures tell us to be led by the Holy Spirit, not some "church".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Why did the gentiles await decision by the Church to know what they ought to do in the Church with regards to Kosher and circumcision then? Why did the Apostles act as if they had authority or why did Paul act as if Timothy had some authority to those Timothy had been entrusted to? I find this statement baffling.

 

[DeaconDean]

We've already had a discussion about the reformation starting that early. I find it absurd to think the Donatists were in any way right or esteemable or some form of Proto-reformation.

Which brings us back to the point that if anybody dared to stand up or disagree with the "Catholic" church, persecution is sure to follow.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I would suggest that all men are fallible and therefore to take refuge in the scripture alone (in belief one has the spirit) is no solution since the individual themselves is fallible. The Apostles did not give us a command to dismiss those put in authority over us or else the Galatians, if they were sincerely convinced from the bible (which if literally interpreted is plausible) by certain preachers were justified. We know they were not and that we hope they listened to Saint Paul and submitted to his authority. The Holy Spirit works not only in the individual but also other people to bring about correction.

You are right, but did the Holy Spirit led Peter to teach hypocrisy in Galatia?

What we can learn is they did not follow Peter, they then turned to Paul and what Paul taught.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Never said anything like that.

Only that they recognized the church, the "Catholic" church needed reforming.

Luther never started "Lutherianism".

I know of church called "Calvinist".

Or any church called "Zwinglyism".

But one can trace the roots of the Ana-Baptists almost back to the Donatists. Were they not "re-baptizers"?

Isn't that the meaning behind "Ana-Baptists"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

We've been through this before. You don't believe there is a historical connection between the Anabaptists and Donatists, only a tangential thematic connection in that they are saying similar things (Which I don't even think is true). This does not amount to a decisive line of theological inquiry persisting over the years and certaintly the Anabaptists would have hated the Donatists for their insistence of the real power of sacraments and as well as other Catholic practices.

In saying Lutheranism or Calvinism (reformed) have no connections to these men I would simply ask whence do these theological movements come from? Are you being pedantic and insisting we call Lutherans Evangelicals? Lutheran is a term readily understandable because much of the theology comes directly from Luther's interpretation and ideas concerning the bible and what the Church ought to be. Also to deny John Calvin's influence amongst the Reformed is equally wrong since we see how much his ideas spread across the world.