On Reformation Day

[Reformed]

So while I am also grateful for Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox for their heroic stand against the pervasive evil of the false-so-called “Christian” religion of Catholicism, I also have to acknowledge that they too brought their own form of pervasive evil by maintaining a distinctly Catholic view of the Church.

Pervasive evil? I think you need to elaborate more on this. Are you attempting to draw a connection between Rome's hierarchical ecclesiology and what would later become Presbyterian ecclesiology? Or perhaps you are referring to paedobaptism? I am not a Presbyterian apologist by any means, but to accuse them of pervasive evil in their ecclesiology requires of bit of explaining.

 

[JonC]

Pervasive evil? I think you need to elaborate more on this. Are you attempting to draw a connection between Rome's hierarchical ecclesiology and what would later become Presbyterian ecclesiology? Or perhaps you are referring to paedobaptism? I am not a Presbyterian apologist by any means, but to accuse them of pervasive evil in their ecclesiology requires of bit of explaining.

I don’t mean in terms of Rome’s hierarchical ecclesiology and Presbyterian ecclesiology. In hindsight, “pervasive evil” may be overstatement, but I am not certain. Actually my comment took a statement referred to by the OP, I but applied it to the Reformation in that it did not rid itself of certain influences that I believe to be distinctly Catholic in origin (insofar as the Church is concerned). Luther, I think, initially hinted of a church composed of believers but instead focused on a territorial church.

Luther could not depart from a territorial church model and the secular authority as an arm of the Church. His comments about Anabaptists indicate that one condemnation was that they separated from the Church, yet their worship in secret is certainly understandable. Another, of course, was believer’s baptism. I think that Luther’s opponents in the Second Front were correct in that the church is an assembly of believers rather than the State-Church model. I would also include paedobaptism, but I think that the practice is somewhat necessary for a State-Church as infants are not only baptized into the Church but also - in a way - into their citizenship.

Although I do believe that the Reformation stopped short of what the Church should be, I also see it a necessary step in God’s design. Without the blend of secular government and Church I do not know that the Reformation would have been successful or would have paved the way for a Second Front. But the doctrine of a territorial Church, “Christendom,” is IMHO an evil that was transferred to the Reformers from the Constantine mentality.

I will also be careful to state that we cannot judge the Reformers and their flaws based on hindsight. Luther made great strides in the Reformation and illuminated a much darkened world. He was a product of his time and in some ways bound by those presuppositions and interpretations of his day. While I, having been Baptist all of my Christian life, would immediately reject the State-Church model and paedobaptism as unbiblical, this proved an understandable struggle for some of the Reformers.

 

[Reformed]

I don’t mean in terms of Rome’s hierarchical ecclesiology and Presbyterian ecclesiology. In hindsight, “pervasive evil” may be overstatement, but I am not certain. Actually my comment took a statement referred to by the OP, I but applied it to the Reformation in that it did not rid itself of certain influences that I believe to be distinctly Catholic in origin (insofar as the Church is concerned). Luther, I think, initially hinted of a church composed of believers but instead focused on a territorial church.

Luther could not depart from a territorial church model and the secular authority as an arm of the Church. His comments about Anabaptists indicate that one condemnation was that they separated from the Church, yet their worship in secret is certainly understandable. Another, of course, was believer’s baptism. I think that Luther’s opponents in the Second Front were correct in that the church is an assembly of believers rather than the State-Church model. I would also include paedobaptism, but I think that the practice is somewhat necessary for a State-Church as infants are not only baptized into the Church but also - in a way - into their citizenship.

Although I do believe that the Reformation stopped short of what the Church should be, I also see it a necessary step in God’s design. Without the blend of secular government and Church I do not know that the Reformation would have been successful or would have paved the way for a Second Front. But the doctrine of a territorial Church, “Christendom,” is IMHO an evil that was transferred to the Reformers from the Constantine mentality.

I will also be careful to state that we cannot judge the Reformers and their flaws based on hindsight. Luther made great strides in the Reformation and illuminated a much darkened world. He was a product of his time and in some ways bound by those presuppositions and interpretations of his day. While I, having been Baptist all of my Christian life, would immediately reject the State-Church model and paedobaptism as unbiblical, this proved an understandable struggle for some of the Reformers.

It is ironic that Luther is credited with the title, "Father of the Reformation" when less than a generation later his views were seen as almost papist in nature. As you rightly pointed out Luther was just a beginning. There were forces at work that were greater than any one man. Changes came quickly as the Magisterial Reformers were in direct opposition to the Radical Reformers. The Puritans provided their own contribution to Reformed theology. One can say that the Reformation was perfected as it matured through successive generations. I happen to look on the very early years of the Reformation as a sort of second patristic age. It was filled with wonderful recaptured truths, but there was also a lot error.

 

[saturneptune]

Over in the silly Halloween thread, Dr Bob made a good note about the nature of Reformation Day. Go read it here before commenting: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=89793

Anyhoo, I celebrate Reformation Day on October 31 for the same reason I celebrate Independence Day on July 4, Christmas on December 25 and such. A key event sparked the smoldering fires of reform in Europe as Luther delivered his 95 Theses in Wittenberg.

For nearly 500 years we have been the beneficaries of the concerted efforts of so many leaders who realigned the purposes of the Church to rediscover the central "solas" of the faith.

Though Baptists clearly arose out of the Radical Reformation later on, and specifically from the English Separatist movement (with some Anabaptist influence), we can still look back to this date in history and be reflectant of the accomplishments and events that took place following this momentus event.

I am thankful for the rediscovered "solas" that still anchor our biblical faith:
Solus Christus
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria

So what say ye?

Good post, and yes, as this thread has progressed, it has shown the contribution of various reformers, some more radical than others, that moved the true New Testament local church away from and separate from the garbage of the RCC.

However, there is another way to look at this. We as humans created our own monster, our own need for a Reformation. Jesus Christ founded the church (not the thread for when, there is another thread for that), followed shortly thereafter by the outpouring of the Spirit. In the first few chapters of Acts, the Church is unified as it should be, sharing, believing, praying and worshiping the Lord in perfect harmony. Just a few decades later, in Paul's letter, we already see false doctrine creep in, the Gnostics, and other false doctrine. The trend continued for a few hundred years, and culminated in the evil entity called the RCC as the predominate church. This set up the need for the Reformation 1000 years later.

The point is, we took the perfect church Jesus Christ handed us, warped it, abused it, and brought shame upon His name. There is nothing glorious about the Reformation, as it was only a minor correction to the monster we had created. Today, the one church that Jesus Christ handed us, is hundreds of denominations, and thousands of groups within each denomination. Most are dead or lukewarm and do not honor Christ. Most "Christians" do not attend church, do not pray, do not study the Bible. We create a mockery of the Gospel with organizations like the RCC, SDA, C of C, Mormons, JWs and many, many others.

There should have never been a need for a Reformation in the first place, and everyone of us ought to hang their head in shame at the state of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ today.

 

[Jerome]

So what did Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, etc., teach regarding the institution and 'keeping' of saints' days?

 

[JonC]

I think, if we stand back and look at the Church as a whole and the spread of Christianity, that God’s hand and providence can been seen not only in the Reformation but also earlier in the Catholic Church. In a way, the Catholic Church served as vehicle for Christianity and the literature/debates of the fourth and fifth centuries that became an expression of the consensus fidelium were not without value. I wouldn’t deny the error of Constantine’s Christendom, but at the same time I can see this as a moving force for the faith (just as the wrongful persecutions of the early Church served to solidify and unify the early Christians). While there were always movements against the RCC, I do not think it appropriate to ignore the strides made during the Church’s time of “captivity” in the RCC. The notion that the Catholic Church had departed from faithful service was not restricted to the Reformers but was also recognized by the RCC itself (unfortunately, the Catholic reforms did not deliver the RCC from error). I guess my point is that all things work for the good to those who love God. The early church persecutions, the RCC and the Reformation served a purpose in God’s design, even though all proved counter to the NT Church model and were instrumental in the deaths of many believers.

I think Yeats is right - “things fall apart, the center cannot hold” - if that center ceases to be Christ. This is the problem, IMHO, that the Reformers faced. Just as the center of the RCC became the RCC, the center (at least in practice) for the Reformers became the Reformed Church itself and they became persecutors almost out of the gate of the Reformation. This in no way, however, diminishes their contribution. As a Baptist, I know that I owe a lot to the Reformers. I also owe a lot to the Radical Reformers and those influences that stood as “heretics” against the RCC and the Magisterial Reformers. But truth be told, I owe everything to God and He was not absent or inattentive during this period in our history.

 

[jonathan.borland]

It is ironic that Luther is credited with the title, "Father of the Reformation" when less than a generation later his views were seen as almost papist in nature. As you rightly pointed out Luther was just a beginning. There were forces at work that were greater than any one man. Changes came quickly as the Magisterial Reformers were in direct opposition to the Radical Reformers. The Puritans provided their own contribution to Reformed theology. One can say that the Reformation was perfected as it matured through successive generations. I happen to look on the very early years of the Reformation as a sort of second patristic age. It was filled with wonderful recaptured truths, but there was also a lot error.

Yeah, there was a lot of error. I appreciate the great reformer Melanchthon, for example, who explained election much more properly than Luther's erroneous attempts.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is ironic that Luther is credited with the title, "Father of the Reformation" when less than a generation later his views were seen as almost papist in nature. As you rightly pointed out Luther was just a beginning. There were forces at work that were greater than any one man. Changes came quickly as the Magisterial Reformers were in direct opposition to the Radical Reformers. The Puritans provided their own contribution to Reformed theology. One can say that the Reformation was perfected as it matured through successive generations. I happen to look on the very early years of the Reformation as a sort of second patristic age. It was filled with wonderful recaptured truths, but there was also a lot error.

Yeah, there was a lot of error. I appreciate the great reformer Melanchthon, for example, who explained election much more properly than Luther's erroneous attempts.

Someone had to take the first step. Before Martin Luther, no one had the fortitude to nail anything resembling the "95 Theses" to the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral. Luther never pretended to be anything but a Catholic. He did not want to leave the Catholic Church. What he wanted was for the doctrine of grace to be preached and the false doctrine of works to be omitted from Church teaching. Obviously, that did not happen. Nonetheless, his actions have influenced not just the Protestant Movement but have continued to convince Catholics down through the centuries that there is more to the gospel than Catholic doctrine. That is what Luther did, and no one else had the nerve, up to that point, to do so, even though many believed as Luther did.

 

[JonC]

That is what Luther did, and no one else had the nerve, up to that point, to do so, even though many believed as Luther did.

I doubt anyone here would not appreciate Luther’s contribution, but I don’t know that it is fair to say that men lacked the nerve of Luther up to that point. As you point out, posting the thesis did not carry the intent that the spark ignited. Also, men like Jan Hus certainly did not lack nerve.

 

[JonC]

So what did Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, etc., teach regarding the institution and 'keeping' of saints' days?

Luther seems to have adhered to veneration of the saints (specifying that this is only with the worship of dulia - veneration). Melanchthon indicated honoring the saints as a means of giving glory to God.


Calvin made note of Luther’s “worship of dulia” and took exception to the practice. To Calvin, saints are to be honorable spoken of and felt, but in no way honored as in veneration or worship - e.g., “no man can assert that the ears of the saints are so long that our prayers can reach them”; “because the Lutherans reply, that in this way the glory of God is transferred to the saints, always keep in mind the distraction of the School, that we worship them only with the worship of dulia.” Calvin – “no other veneration of the saints is recommended to us in Scripture, but that which is universally due to believers…Of the saints, therefore, in proportion as each of them excels in divine gifts, or has been placed by the Lord in a higher rank, we must both feel and speak honorably. But to render worship to them, as the generality were wont to do, is profane superstition” (see Calvin, “Articles agreed upon by the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris, with the Antidote”).


So my understanding is that Luther would not object to veneration of the saints while Calvin would hold this too close to worship and idolatry. I think that the same ideology can be ascribed to Calvin’s rejection of relics and physical symbols of the faith.

 

[JonC]

And it’s still bugging the heck out of me - has anyone here heard the term “of Jesus and the Marines,” and if so, what is it supposed to mean?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And it’s still bugging the heck out of me - has anyone here heard the term “of Jesus and the Marines,” and if so, what is it supposed to mean?

I've heard people say "me, Jesus and the Marines can fix the world." I'm thinkin' that's what ole' Luke is trying to say. He's obtuse at times -- kinda like a freight train.

Other than a blog and a Facebook page, I don't know of any other valid use of the phrase.

 

[JonC]

I've heard people say "me, Jesus and the Marines can fix the world." Is that what you mean?

Other than a blog and a Facebook page, I don't know of any other valid use of the phrase.

I have no idea. Another poster said that I was “of Jesus and the Marines.” Although I’m sure it was derogatory (by context of the conversation), it didn’t make sense to me.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I have no idea. Another poster said that I was “of Jesus and the Marines.” Although I’m sure it was derogatory (by context of the conversation), it didn’t make sense to me.

I had to look at the whole page to find the original reference. I've edited the post to which you replied, FYI.

 

[Luke2427]

In all sincerity I am sorry for you as I believe you are blinded by your own stubbornness and prejudices rather than by stupidity. I do not denounce people for celebrating Reformation Day or even the practice of observing Reformation Day – yet you would have me sin by paying tribute to and accepting Luther as the authority of my faith against my conscience. You should have realized that there is a difference between honoring the sacrifices of men and paying tribute to a man by accepting him as an authority of our faith.



You are all over the place - I do not even know what you mean by being “of the Marines” – perhaps you should elaborate. What do you mean and how on earth did the Marines even come up in this discussion????

Well then try to keep up, Jon.

You say you don't honor anybody then you say you honor soldiers, LIKE THE MARINES, and then you say you only honor Jesus Christ and then you say you honor Veterans and then you say you absolutely do not honor Martin Luther because that makes you an idolator.

You honor people like the Marines while saying you only honor Jesus Christ and that honoring people is idolatry so you don't honor Martin Luther but you do honor the Marines (or whatever your favorite branch of the military is).

Frankly Jon, you don;t know if you are coming or going.

I do have to say that it would be a welcome change if you honored the Word of God as much as you claim to honor Luther.

This is a REAL jackass thing to say, Jon. I mean, just about as bad as I have ever heard on baptistboard.

You don't know me. You don't know what I have endured for the sake of the Word of God.

And you have already proven that you have NO respect for men who DO greatly honor the Word of God.

It was wrong of you to alter the passage and claim Paul corrected the Corinthians for being pious and saying “We are of Jesus.” Again, here is the actual verse:

It was not wrong. You are wrong. Saying I am wrong does not make me wrong and it does not make you right.

Paul was condemning factions and fighting. He mentioned several fighting groups. Some who claimed they were of Apollos and others of Peter... and one of the factious groups piously intimated they were better than their peers because they were of Jesus.

Using the name of Jesus to create division in the body of Christ and exalt one's self above others is about as evil a thing as a human being can do.

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 1 Corinthians 3:4-7

Yes and there is here no commendation for the self-righteous hypocrites who Paul corrected for being factious boasting that they were better than there peers, more spiritual than their peers by claiming they were of Jesus.

 

[JonC]

I've heard people say "me, Jesus and the Marines can fix the world." I'm thinkin' that's what ole' Luke is trying to say. He's obtuse at times -- kinda like a freight train.

Obtuse is a kinder word than I was thinking…..perhaps I should adopt it as it'd be the more brotherly thing to do. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JonC]

This is a REAL jackass thing to say, Jon. I mean, just about as bad as I have ever heard on baptistboard.
You don't know me. You don't know what I have endured for the sake of the Word of God.

This is true - and it was wrong of me. I was responding from the interpretation that you presented of Romans 13 and the authority that Luther held in your Faith - but you are right. I do not know you and our comments here on the BB are not necessarily reflections of our lives. I took it that your general regard for Scripture was reflected in this interpretation of Romans 13. For that, I do apologize.

You say you don't honor anybody then you say you honor soldiers, LIKE THE MARINES, and then you say you only honor Jesus Christ and then you say you honor Veterans and then you say you absolutely do not honor Martin Luther because that makes you an idolator.

Luke, I’m not saying you are foolish…but this is a very foolish statement. You don't know me. You don't know what I have endured for the sake of the Word of God, or for my country for that matter. This is a REAL jackass thing to say, Luke. I mean, just about as bad as I have ever heard on baptistboard.

From your comments, I take it you were a marine…or at least served you country in some military branch. (If this is true of you - and I could think of no better way of expressing your gratitude than serving - then I do sincerely offer my thanks for your service).

But as I’ve said - this conversation will not go anywhere because I reject the notion that I have been commanded by God to pay tribute to Luther as an authority of my faith. You can skirt the issues, but this is the bolder that stands in our way. Neither of us will budge so there is no need in keeping it up.

 

[JonC]

Oops...too late to edit. Change Bolder to Boulder in last post. Typing surpassed thinking. :BangHead:.

 

[Luke2427]

This is true - and it was wrong of me. I was responding from the interpretation that you presented of Romans 13 and the authority that Luther held in your Faith - but you are right. I do not know you and our comments here on the BB are not necessarily reflections of our lives. I took it that your general regard for Scripture was reflected in this interpretation of Romans 13. For that, I do apologize.




Luke, I’m not saying you are foolish…but this is a very foolish statement. You don't know me. You don't know what I have endured for the sake of the Word of God, or for my country for that matter. This is a REAL jackass thing to say, Luke. I mean, just about as bad as I have ever heard on baptistboard.

From your comments, I take it you were a marine…or at least served you country in some military branch. (If this is true of you - and I could think of no better way of expressing your gratitude than serving - then I do sincerely offer my thanks for your service).

But as I’ve said - this conversation will not go anywhere because I reject the notion that I have been commanded by God to pay tribute to Luther as an authority of my faith. You can skirt the issues, but this is the bolder that stands in our way. Neither of us will budge so there is no need in keeping it up.

Its not going anywhere because you honor veterans on veterans day and you ignore Luther on Reformation Day and then you claim to ignore Luther because you don't honor anybody but Jesus- but you honor VETERANS!!!


If you can't see the inconsistency there, then you are beyond help!

 

[JonC]

Its not going anywhere because you honor veterans on veterans day and you ignore Luther on Reformation Day and then you claim to ignore Luther because you don't honor anybody but Jesus- but you honor VETERANS!!!


If you can't see the inconsistency there, then you are beyond help!

First off, I do apologize if my explanation was not clear. I do not know any other way to put it, so I’ll simply try again.

I honor Luther in terms of respecting his work and contributions to our faith. I feel the same about men like Jan Hus and Wycliffe. It is in this way that I believe that we honor those who served our nation. I do not view these people as an authority of how I should live. Likewise, I do not accept Luther as an authority of my faith. He did not discover, but rediscovered and reemphasized what was already there. This is where we disagree. I know that you observe Reformation Day as Luther is “an authority” of your faith. I am sure that you will be observing Radical Reformation Day in January as they contributed as much to your beliefs. I’m sure that you pay tribute to Hus and Wycliffe. I am not condemning you for observing these days, but I am saying that you have departed from Scripture by trying to condemn others for not observing these days. I prefer to acknowledge and think of the reformation as a whole, and in that honor the work of God wrought throughout that timeperiod (to include the pre-Reformation and the Second Front) because I believe it forms a greater perspective on the works which contributed to the formation of Baptist doctrine. But I do not place any of these men, used of God, as an authority of faith. Perhaps it is time to be less juvinile and more Christlike, Luke.