Anyone here observe Lent, etc?

[HankD]

Its not nonexistent. Its well known.

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

This is a Christian DEBATE Forum.

 

[HankD]

By the way 1 Timothy 2:5 says mediator not intercessor. A mediator is someone who establishes a new covenant. An intercessor is someone who interceeds or prays on your behalf.
If there were only one intercessor, no one could pray for anyone.
There is one MEDIATOR not one INTERCESSOR.

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.

 

[HankD]

Wycliffe and Hus, IMHO, foreshadowed the Reformation. Luther removed the final chock from the wheel and set the stage for complete separation from Rome.

Again, IMHO, the Radical Reformers (mostly Anabaptists) went in their own direction as opposed to the magisterial Reformers who had varying degrees of support from secular governments. Particular Baptists had a difficult time finding their niche because they were not Anabaptists or accepted by the Presbyterians who were in the magisterial camp. One thing the Magisterial Reformers and Particular Baptists agreed on was to distance themselves from the papacy in all areas.

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.

 

[JonC]

That the Huguenots murdered "a lot of people".

Perhaps he meant Juggernaut.

 

[Reformed]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree. This is one reason I suppose I view the "Reformation" as a larger (and longer) process than the Reformation as a historic period. I think this is evident in the 19th century Baptist debates concerning issues like Landmarkism, Infant Baptism, etc. (the accusation was commonly the opposing side held "romish" doctrine).

It seems a bit off to think that one generation could completely root out twelve hundred years of doctrinal influence.

 

[JonC]

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

The problem is this does not happen (not talking about my "favorite" disagreement).

One of John Piper's main points against N.T. Wright's appeal to revisit the topic of Justification was that Wright was challenging a view/ definition that has been established for over four centuries. While I disagree with Wright, I thought this was a very poor argument (one Piper would have done better to have left out of his book).

 

[HankD]

I agree. This is one reason I suppose I view the "Reformation" as a larger (and longer) process than the Reformation as a historic period. I think this is evident in the 19th century Baptist debates concerning issues like Landmarkism, Infant Baptism, etc. (the accusation was commonly the opposing side held "romish" doctrine).

It seems a bit off to think that one generation could completely root out twelve hundred years of doctrinal influence.

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.

 

[Reformed]

The problem is this does not happen (not talking about my "favorite" disagreement).
One of John Piper's main points against N.T. Wright's appeal to revisit the topic of Justification was that Wright was challenging a view/ definition that has been established for over four centuries. While I disagree with Wright, I thought this was a very poor argument (one Piper would have done better to have left out of his book).

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.

 

[Ran the Man]

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.

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.

 

[Ran the Man]

The problem is this does not happen (not talking about my "favorite" disagreement).

One of John Piper's main points against N.T. Wright's appeal to revisit the topic of Justification was that Wright was challenging a view/ definition that has been established for over four centuries. While I disagree with Wright, I thought this was a very poor argument (one Piper would have done better to have left out of his book).

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

 

[Ran the Man]

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

This is a Christian DEBATE Forum.

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.

 

[Ran the Man]

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

 

[JonC]

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

Piper was referring to the Reformation. The book was "The Future of Justification". N.T. Wright made the claim that evangelical Christianity has adopted a view of Justification that related more to the Reformation than to the first century. Wright wanted an open dialogue to explore Justification in what he believed was a more biblical context (he believes Reformed theology has made the Jew to look more like the 16th Century Catholic Church and the Christian more like the Protestant Reformers struggling against the Catholic Church).

One of Piper's objections (the only one that I found flat out wrong) was that Wright should not challenge doctrine that has been established for four centuries.

 

[Ran the Man]

Piper was referring to the Reformation. The book was "The Future of Justification". N.T. Wright made the claim that evangelical Christianity has adopted a view of Justification that related more to the Reformation than to the first century. Wright wanted an open dialogue to explore Justification in what he believed was a more biblical context (he believes Reformed theology has made the Jew to look more like the 16th Century Catholic Church and the Christian more like the Protestant Reformers struggling against the Catholic Church).

One of Piper's objections (the only one that I found flat out wrong) was that Wright should not challenge doctrine that has been established for four centuries.

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

 

[Walter]

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.

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.

 

[Reformed]

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

 

[Ran the Man]

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

This is a Christian DEBATE Forum.

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/

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

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.

 

[Ran the Man]

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

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