Anyone here observe Lent, etc?

Well then prove it. Put up or be quiet and put your head back in the sand.

This is a Christian DEBATE Forum.

 

OK you can have all the "intercessors" you want, For my salvation I'll take the one mediator - God almighty come in the flesh - Jesus Christ.

 

Personally I don't think "complete reformation" from Rome has been achieved.
No sooner has one error been dealt with than another even more subtle appears on the horizon.

 

Well, one of the cries of the Reformation was "Semper Reformada" = Always Reforming. The Church should always be on a quest to be more biblical without sacrificing godliness.

 

So true Jon. At the end of the world (aion - age) Jesus will send a band of angels and TRUE Reformation will finally happen.

Matthew 13
47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

Semper Reformada does not mean Semper Mutanura (Always Changing). The difference between pre-Reformation Christianity and post-Reformation Christianity is that the former relied heavily on paradosis (tradition) from early on in the Patristic age. Once the ecumenical councils had finished, the papacy reserved for itself sole authority for biblical interpretation. This is one of the reasons why much good theology was left unfinished when Rome took its dominant role for nearly 1000 years. After the Reformation, the scriptures were in the hands of the masses and theologians were emboldened to oppose the papacy. I do understand the fascination with all things from antiquity. Roman Catholicism and Greek/Eastern Orthodox churches love pointing to the ancient origins of their faith, as though older is somehow better. Protestants do it as well, citing the ECF's as somehow more accomplished in theology than the Reformers.

There is a pervasive ignorance among contemporary Christians of the theological work of the Reformers and Puritans. Protestantism traces its roots to the Reformation, not the Patristic age. Reformation-period theologians wrestled with the scriptures, once they had the freedom to do so. They freely debated one another; often separating because of sharp disagreements. The Puritans picked up on where the Reformers left off. By the time we get to the great protestant confessions of the faith, many of the foundational doctrines of Protestant Christianity had been run through the wringer. That is the main difference between the theology of the Patristic age and the theology of the Reformation. I cannot find the exact quote (and if someone can, please post it), but R.C. Sproul famously said that if you come up with a private interpretation of scripture that has escaped the church for the past 2000 years, you should seriously consider abandoning your interpretation. Dr. Sproul was not taking up the view of Rome, he was making the point that after 2000 years of church history, there isn't much in the way of theology that hasn't been settled. Now, does that mean we should not study the scriptures to understand them for ourselves? Of course not! But if preacher-boy Johnny comes up with a doctrinal conclusion that Christian orthodoxy has rejected or never heard of, he would be well-served to reconsider his conclusion. A lot of the new scholarship is departing from Sola Scriptura in order to come up with unbiblical doctrines. A one-time good friend of mine began his doctoral work to prove that the messenger in Mark 1 was not John the Baptist, but Jesus. He was blazing a new trail. His reason? He wanted to take a unique position that would get him published. That is an anecdotal story but reveals some of the suspect motivations of modern scholarship.

Anyway, I am done with my unplanned rant.

 

For salvation, there is only one mediator, the man Christ Jesus.
But here's the million dollar question, one that I can't answer either:
Do the dead in Christ pray for the living?
My thoughts are you don't stop being part of the church after you die. There is only one church, and living or dead we serve Christ.

 

Established four centuries? The church is 2000 years old. He established nothing. None of the fathers before Augustine agree with Piper.

 

My head is not in the sand. You could look up anything your fingers chose to type in that keyboard. But since you asked...
Martin Luther . Cheat's Guide | PBS
And there are more.

 

The reformation people are not the heroes you want them to be.

 

Thanks for clarification. The thing I find odd is how nobody seems to read anything before 1500AD.

 

I am much more persuaded by the beliefs and practices of someone like Ignatius of Antioch (who sat at the feet of St. John) than I am some 'Johnny come lately' so called 'reformer ' some 1,500 years later.

 

You should do some study on the Patristic age and the rife heresies it produced. That era was a mixed bag. Anyone who bases their theology on their conclusions probably is a theological mixed bag themselves.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Oh and here's more. Of course, you're going to say it's not true, to which I will say then no evidence is necessary for you.
http://shamelesspopery.com/the-dark-side-of-martin-luther/

 

So you would have believed Judas Iscariot who sat at the feet of our Lord and Demas and Alexander the coppersmith who sat at the feet of Paul? Read Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30. Antiquity is no guide to truth.

 

Very smug, self assured answer. Very typical of we Baptists nowdays.