The Reformation: Which side was right?

Jude,
Do you believe we baptist's was part of the reformation? I'm not protestant. How about you?

 

Luther didn't want to break away from the church. He had challenged the church to debate their beliefs and whether they were correct when compaired with Scripture. In the end Luther was basically forced to leave since they would not change and didn't want him around causeing problems. Of course this is a very reduced version of what happened at the Reformation.

 

Wow, is that poll biased or what?

I think the break was an important event in church history. It is not necessarily unfortunate that Christians challenge each other, it keeps us sharp and forces us to dig through the scriptures growing in the Word. The Roman Church very clearly needed a wake up call at the time of the Reformation, and Luther gave them just that.

Bro. Adam

 

Hard to reconcile with folks who want to burn you at the stake if you disagree with them. The RCC was, is and will be thoroughly corrupt until it is destroyed in the Tribulation. The part where the Reformers failed is that they did not divest themselves of enough of the junk in RCism and that has left a door to return since the many of the churches have left the doctrines of the reformers becoming harlos and thus are returning to Mom.

 

The Roman Catholic Church did need reformation. Abuses were occurring far too frequently. However, what the reformers sought was to destroy all the doctrine from which abuses were springing forward. They neglected the fact that abuses will always occur in everything. The Catholic Church reformed itself over the next 100 years and cleaned out many if not all of the abuses that were occurring in those days.

The reformation wasn't a reformation at all; it was a succession. Churches reform from within. A Church isn't reformed by splintering into countless different factions.

 

This assumes that all the doctrines from which the abuses sprang were valid doctrines. This is manifestly not the case. As fro the Couner-reformation, the false doctrines that gave rise to the abuses are still there, as are the abuses, though not nearly so rampant. But does the frequency matter? I don't think so.

I would disagree that the Reformation was a succession. The True Church went on, duly reformed by the principles of Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, and the good old "church always reforming" (forget the latin phrase).

 

Ecclesia Reformata et Semper Reformanda

"The Church Reformed and Always Reforming"

Also, remember Solus Christus.

Ken

[ September 09, 2002, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Sola Scriptura

Where is the controlling Scripture for this?

After you realize you can't find it, no doubt the meaning will change from "sole authority" to "final authority" as your Baptist brothers on this board now insist.

Ron

 

Sola Scriptura

Where is the controlling Scripture for this?

After you realize you can't find it, no doubt the meaning will change from "sole authority" to "final authority" as your Baptist brothers on this board now insist.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Ron,

You are obviously ignorant of what Sola Scritura means. Typically, you take ther term out of context (as you do the Father's Scripture, must be a disease!). Sola Scriptura never meant that Scripture is the ONLY authoirty. It has always meant that Scripture alone si the norm that norms all other norms.

So no one has changed the meanig of the term. You simpy want to use a begged definition of the term (sound familiar? it si such a pathetically typical tactic, and so weak!), namely your own! But it is not YOUR definition that is the basis for discussion.

What you see as a change is merely a correction of your erroneous understanding. I suggest you accept the correction. You certainly would not want people here telling you what YOUR beliefs must mean. You don't want anyone telling you for example that Papal Infallibility must mean also that the pope is Impeccable, since that is not what you believe. But that is effectively what you are trying to do.

It is illegitimate and wrong.

So accept the correction about the meaning of Sola Scriptura. It is the Christian thing to do after all.

 

He called the Church the anti-christ yet he didn't want to break away? Perhaps not in the beginning, but by the end he discovered what the CC was really about and what he must do.

Bryan

 

Scripture alone is the norm that norms all other norms?

Can you provide the Scriptural reference for this belief?

(Edited starting here)

Wait. As I think about it, considering that there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, a definition of Sola Scriptura is probably nonexistent. Each of these denominations will have it’s own definition of sola Scriptura. Each definition would have to be looked at separately.

I'd hazard to say there are multiple definitions of Sola Scriptura just within Baptist churches.

Ron

[ September 09, 2002, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

"Can you provide the Scriptural reference for this belief?"

Yes. But I am sure that you have already seen it and, characteristically, ignored it. I won't bother reposting it, especially since that draws the thread off topic.

"Each of these denominations will have it's own definition of sola Scriptura. Each definition would have to be looked at separately.

I'd hazard to say there are multiple definitions of Sola Scriptura just within Baptist churches."

Wrong. As I said, the definition of Sola Scriptura is objective, just as the definition of Papal Infallibility does. It is not open to the kind of subjectiovism you presume. Of oucvrse this is just more of your usual techniques.

You will of course find people who are more or less informed about the doctrine, and so misrepresentations occur. That is true for your doctrines as well. I know peopel who actually DO say that Papl Infallibility measn Papl Impeccability. Of course if I were to argue that this means that there are as many definitions of Ppal Infallibility asd therare RCs, you'd reject that.

It becomes more evident as time goes on that you are just as utterly uninformed about the beliefs that you deny as eh ones you purport to support! You also seem to like using double standard, begged definitions, and circular arguments. I am not a professional apologist, but even by my standard those are strictly amateur night tactics.

That beig the case, I'll let someone else deal with you. I frankly am not inclined to deal with such elementary mistakes as yours at this time. So please refrain from posting to me. I won't be responding to you. Perhaps someone else?

 

This is another example of the "big lie." If it is told often enough people actually begin to believe this nonsense. According to "Handbook of Denominations" by Mead/Hill there are 234 distinct denominations. Tens of thousands? Totally dishonest number!

 

We are talking about a heretical cult that might have been a true church many,many years ago but not for a 1,000+ years. Gracesaves think it has cleaned up its act. Not. The PR may have changed but the dogma has not. Classic example

Dallas Morning News 9/1/2002

An article regarding the covering up of child molesters.

"Amarillo bishop" 'Communication of the truth is not a universal right.' " He was more concerned about the reputatios of the priest than the safety of the children.

That is the same old Jesuit dogma. I do not need to tell my enemy the truth and all non-Catholics are enemies so what truth do you think they have been communicating over the years? None, zip, nada!

They are suckering in lots of folks because most of those churches have left the truth anyway so swapping a lie for a lie ain't no big thang!

 

"Regarding Sola Scriptura, I don't believe that the doctrine existed in the Church prior to the 14th Century.(?)."

Not in name, no. The practoce however of the Bible being the norm that norms all norms can be traced back.

"The term 'material sufficiency' (alluded to in 2 Tim.3.17) means that the Bible, in one way or another, contains all the truths necessary for a believer to know. Problem is, you can argue the number of denominations, but the truth is, there are a LOT of them, and they are all ones who argue 'sola scriptura', and yet have views that differ (Calvinism vs. Arminianism, for example)."

And why do you think think that Sola Scriptura SHOULD lead to doctrinal unanimity?

"'Formal sufficiency' the Bible cannot claim, for that would mean that everything the Bible teaches is abundantly clear and in an understandable fashion."

Sola Scriptura does ot claim that all things are equaly clear anyway.

"I would argue that the Sacred, fully inspired Word of God needs an interpreter...for 2 Peter 1.20 clearly states that no Biblical passage is up to 'private' interpretation."

This lacks biblical suport. Can you elaborate? Perhaps on another thread? Don't want to hijack this one.

"The Reformation, while understandable and even necessary (given the corruption that was in the Roman Church in those days)may now be 'up for review' in our day."

One of the priniciples of hte Reformation is "the church always reforming", so you alreay have your wish.

"Schism has only begotten more schism, and one wonders when it will end? (Look at the apostasy of mainline Protestantism, look at the apostasy being taught on TBN fer gosh sakes!)"

The first schisms had nothing to do with protestantism or the Reformation. So I don't see what good an interpreter a la Rome or what have you would make. After all the very corruption you mention happened in a chuirch with an interpreter. So I fail to see how we would be better off with a Magisterium.

"Perhaps it is time (not for a return to Rome)but a re-examination of early Christian doctrine/teaching, and perhaps in this effort, the divided Church of Christ can become ONE again?!?!?"

Many of the foremost patristics scholars(that's the study of the Early Church Fathers) are protestant. The Ancient Christian Commentary series is a Protestant publication. The research you seek has been happening for a while.

But the reality is that the barrier to instituional unity (why should this be desirable? and does not the Scriptures tell us that we all who are in Christ are ALREADY one?) is the RCC. Through the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and the related ideas that the RCC is protected from doctrinal error, and EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nullam Salus) the RCC has already precluded any unity that does not result in an assimilation of all non-RCism into RCism. Biblical Christianity will not allow that. (Of course with the way that the RCC these days fllip flops on things, I suppose anything is possible.)

I used to be encouraged by such things as ECT (Evangelicals and Cathlics Together) but now I find that the fact that the RCs represented speak TO and not FOR RCs means that the unity of that paper is merely a paper unity.

I suppose though that even that is a step up from the old idea of anonymous Christians...

 

Again, when someone tells me that Scripture is their authority, they are really telling me that they are their own authority.

So, does everyone, or even all Baptists, agee that the definition of Sola Scriptura is and always has been "the norm that norms all other norms"?

Be careful, if you disagree you shall be judged (not by me, but by certain of your peers) as misinformed and making misrepresentations.

Perhaps we should start a poll on the various definitions of Sola Scriptura. I have found several versions posted on the web.

What misinformed version do all of you hold to?

Really, Latreia, you should grant your Baptist brothers a little soul liberty.

Ron

[ September 09, 2002, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]