What did the "Reformers" reform that needed reforming??

[Cathode]

@Ascetic X will no doubt answer for himself as he has time, but I very much doubt that any Baptist or Bible-believing Protestant would hold Martin Luther as any authority beyond where his teaching is in line with the Bible; much less as an apostle. A quick flip through this thread did not reveal to me any poster who claimed Luther as an authority.
Luther was a man like all of us and he made several mistakes as we all do. But at least he didn't lead troops into battle as 'pope' Julius II did, or commit the appalling financial abuses that Leo X did. We may honour Luther as a man who stood for the Scriptures and against the corruption of the Roman Church at the very real peril of his life.

So you followed his revolutionary sola scriptura and sola fide ideas anyway?

But you can’t give a basis for Luther’s authority to interpret anything?

 

[JonC]

What did the "Reformers" reform that needed reforming??

I believe they reformed a lot that needed reforming (some of this, like indulgences, the RCC also reformed afterwards).

But the problem is the Reformers approached the faith as Roman Catholics turning back to the Bible. Each only reformed what they identified as wrong - keeping a new version of RCC doctrine they viewed as needing correction, abandoning some doctrines, but also assuming other doctrines were correct.

Reformed doctrine is a form of RCC doctrine just as Arminianism is a form of Calvinist doctrine (each works off the base provided by the theogy they are trying to reform).

 

[atpollard]

If only we had an expert trained in Jewish traditions to properly interpret the original cultural roots and scriptural references that Jesus made (a Pharisee of Pharisees who studied under Gamaliel might be helpful), but someone also familiar with western cultural traditions (a Roman citizen from Tarsus for example). It would be best if they were inspired directly by God and assigned the specific task of bringing the Good News and The Way of Jesus to the “gentile” world. Where could we find someone with that sort of training and authority to teach us to “follow Christ” even as he did (without relying on either our own understanding of the traditions of other men … both of which got us into the current mess.

 

[Cathode]

Luther” as a man “ with his own interpretations of scripture.

This is the problem right here.

Man made traditions from personal interpretations of scripture.

Every heresy that ever existed interpreted and cited scripture to justify it.

Luther didn’t reform anything, he did the other R word, he rebelled and started a human tradition.

A true example of a reformer is Saint Francis who through heroic virtue, radical following of the Gospel and personal example in humility, contrasted the differences between worldliness and genuine spiritual living.

Luther had none of these to recommend him, he was not virtuous, anyone who reads about him can see this plainly. Pride, arrogance and vulgarity marked everything he did.

 

[JonC]

If only we had an expert trained in Jewish traditions to properly interpret the original cultural roots and scriptural references that Jesus made (a Pharisee of Pharisees who studied under Gamaliel might be helpful), but someone also familiar with western cultural traditions (a Roman citizen from Tarsus for example). It would be best if they were inspired directly by God and assigned the specific task of bringing the Good News and The Way of Jesus to the “gentile” world. Where could we find someone with that sort of training and authority to teach us to “follow Christ” even as he did (without relying on either our own understanding of the traditions of other men … both of which got us into the current mess.

The problem is we would still have different interpretations of this Roman Jew.

With the Reformers the problem was they assumed many extra-biblical RCC doctrines were correct (they fought against what they saw as wrong but did not see other things in their doctrine that were uniquely Roman Catholic).

We cannot blame them for that. That was their worldview and they could only address what stood out to them.

History is like that. We look Whitfield and his approval of slavery and wonder how such a godly man approve of such evil even if through it slaves were taught the gospel. But that was the world in which he lived.

Same with the Reformers. Looking back we can see error.

The crime is this Reformation did not continue. The reforming stopped at some point and the reformed movement became stagnant, no longer able to examine its own theology except through its own theology.

 

[JonC]

But you can’t give a basis for Luther’s authority to interpret anything?

It is not about interpretation.

What passages do Catholics interpret differently than Protestants?

The eucharist? No, here the Catholics extract one verse from the passage and use it as the pagan Romans did (partaking of the host), and for the exact same reasons (governmental power, initially secular Roman power both with pagan worship and the early Catholics). Christians would have been fine under Rome were they willing to "partake of the host" (the symbolizism was unity with Rome through Roman gods, literally the meat was viewed as the God's flesh, as idols are viewed as the gods themselves).

What of Jesus words to Peter, "upon this rock...". Here it is not interpretation but application, and again related to politics.

Scripture interprets itself. Men get in the way.

 

[Cathode]

It is not about interpretation.

What passages do Catholics interpret differently than Protestants?

The eucharist? No, here the Catholics extract one verse from the passage and use it as the pagan Romans did (partaking of the host), and for the exact same reasons (governmental power, initially secular Roman power both with pagan worship and the early Catholics). Christians would have been fine under Rome were they willing to "partake of the host" (the symbolizism was unity with Rome through Roman gods, literally the meat was viewed as the God's flesh, as idols are viewed as the gods themselves).

What of Jesus words to Peter, "upon this rock...". Here it is not interpretation but application, and again related to politics.

Scripture interprets itself. Men get in the way.

It is about interpretation Jon, we do follow different interpretations of scripture.

The Eucharist has nothing to do with paganism.

Catholics simply believe Jesus own words in scripture.

“ My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink “

We believe this. The Eucharist is Jesus Himself come to personally Commune with us and give us His Life and resurrection so that our bodies will be raised.

For us, Jesus isn’t just spirit but physical as well, receiving Jesus flesh and blood gives life to our flesh and blood unto resurrection.

“ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day “

We believe only Jesus is the resurrection and the life and that by eating His flesh and drinking His blood we have eternal life and our bodies will be raised on the last day.

So it’s very important to believe this.

Jesus words are required believing.

 

[JonC]

It is about interpretation Jon, we do follow different interpretations of scripture.

No, we do not. You follow your church (Scripture is their supporting document, when it suits them).

 

[David Lamb]

So you followed his revolutionary sola scriptura and sola fide ideas anyway?

But you can’t give a basis for Luther’s authority to interpret anything?

Sorry, but you seem to be ignoring much of Martin's post. For instance, he wrote:

" I very much doubt that any Baptist or Bible-believing Protestant would hold Martin Luther as any authority beyond where his teaching is in line with the Bible; much less as an apostle. A quick flip through this thread did not reveal to me any poster who claimed Luther as an authority.
Luther was a man like all of us and he made several mistakes as we all do." (my emphasis)

Yet you reply by complaining that Martin can't give a basis for Luther's authority.

 

[Foxmeister]

So far, there are no documented responses. Why?

I suggest you use the internet and do a little research on why Martin Luther came to believe the Catholic Church was corrupt and how it led to him being excommunicated from the church.

 

[Walter]

As a former Baptist, I personally do not find Catholic apologist like Scott Hahn, Karll Keating, etc deceptive, but scholarly and truthful. I found Baptist cannot show any historical documents to show the Early Church held their beliefs. . I was amazed to find that I could find no trace of Evangelical Christianity in the Church prior to the sixteenth century. Even the Waldensians and followers of Wyclif knew nothing of justification by faith alone. Both groups participated in the sacraments of the Catholic Church and were originally “reform” movements, not churches. Not one of the early Church Fathers preached justification by faith alone. Wyclif died hearing Mass, unbaptized as a believer, satisfied with his Catholic infant baptism.

You want to talk about deception? How about the widely circulated (still) and debunked 'Trail Of Blood' most of you have read and probably have in your home libraries?

 

[Foxmeister]

I believe they reformed a lot that needed reforming (some of this, like indulgences, the RCC also reformed afterwards).

But the problem is the Reformers approached the faith as Roman Catholics turning back to the Bible. Each only reformed what they identified as wrong - keeping a new version of RCC doctrine they viewed as needing correction, abandoning some doctrines, but also assuming other doctrines were correct.

Reformed doctrine is a form of RCC doctrine just as Arminianism is a form of Calvinist doctrine (each works off the base provided by the theogy they are trying to reform).

What led Luther to see the Catholic church as a corrupt organization was his studying the Bible. He found scripture did not support what the church was doing. The Catholic church did many things just to raise more money and to control control countries.

 

[Cathode]

Sorry, but you seem to be ignoring much of Martin's post. For instance, he wrote:

" I very much doubt that any Baptist or Bible-believing Protestant would hold Martin Luther as any authority beyond where his teaching is in line with the Bible; much less as an apostle. A quick flip through this thread did not reveal to me any poster who claimed Luther as an authority.
Luther was a man like all of us and he made several mistakes as we all do." (my emphasis)

Yet you reply by complaining that Martin can't give a basis for Luther's authority.

Well you all seem to follow Luther’s novel ideas of sola scriptura and sola fide, but he is a heretic to you on much else, and he would have considered you guys heretics as well.
Luther’s scripture alone religion is very different from your scripture alone religion.

This guy lays out the problem. Short:

 

[Foxmeister]

Well you all seem to follow Luther’s novel ideas of sola scriptura and sola fide, but he is a heretic to you on much else, and he would have considered you guys heretics as well.
Luther’s scripture alone religion is very different from your scripture alone religion.

This guy lays out the problem. Short:

Here's the issues Martin Luther had with the Catholic Church and why he saw it as corrupt. Keep in mind that before he had become a priest, he was well-educated. He was studying law as a Master's program before he became a priest. Here's a list of differences he had with the Catholic Church:

Practice and Financial Abuses

• Sale of Indulgences: Condemned the monetization of forgiveness and fundraising to build St. Peter’s Basilica.
• Clerical Corruption: Criticized wealthy, uneducated, and morally corrupt clergy members and higher church officials.
• Exploitation of the Poor: Argued that selling pardons took money from poor people who could ill afford it

Theological and Doctrinal Disagreements

• Faith Alone (Sola Fide): Stated that salvation is a free gift from God through faith, not earned via church rituals or good works.
• Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura): Maintained that the Bible is the only supreme authority, rejecting papal decrees and church traditions as equal sources of faith.
• Priesthood of All Believers: Rejected the unique mediating role of the traditional priesthood, arguing all Christians have equal access to God.
• Reduction of Sacraments: Dismissed five of the seven Catholic sacraments, keeping only baptism and the Eucharist.

 

[Walter]

And, speaking of 'Bible believing', maybe be more concerned about the mess that all these 'sola scriptura' churches have become:

The American Baptist Church, The Episcopal Church, The Disciples of Christ, The Presbyterian Church USA, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, The Unitarian Church, The Quakers, The United Church of Christ, The United Pentecostal Church, The Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually, as you well know, the list goes on and on and on of all the churches or sects that claim to hold to Sola Scriptura. Each one claims the Holy Spirit guided them in their beliefs and hold the truth. Your mainline LGBT churches claim scripture supports their new teaching on sexuality. New denominations popping up every day.
Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic?

 

[Foxmeister]

And, speaking of 'Bible believing', maybe be more concerned about the mess that all these 'sola scriptura' churches have become:

The American Baptist Church, The Episcopal Church, The Disciples of Christ, The Presbyterian Church USA, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, The Unitarian Church, The Quakers, The United Church of Christ, The United Pentecostal Church, The Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually, as you well know, the list goes on and on and on of all the churches or sects that claim to hold to Sola Scriptura. Each one claims the Holy Spirit guided them in their beliefs and hold the truth. Your mainline LGBT churches claim scripure suppots their new teaching on sexuality. New denominations popping up every day.
Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic?

You can see with all of this the prophesy there will be a falling way of the church is occurring.

 

[Walter]

You can see with all of this the prophesy there will be a falling way of the church is occurring.

That only addresses the liberal teachings of some of these denominations. Some of these churches would be considered 'fundies' such as The Churches of Christ, The United Pentecostal Church (Unitarians), Jehovah's Witnesses, The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, WELS, The Evangelical Presbyterian Church, The Anglican Church of North America, etc. All hold to Sola Scriptura but their doctrines and polity are very, very different, right?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So you followed his revolutionary sola scriptura and sola fide ideas anyway?

But you can’t give a basis for Luther’s authority to interpret anything?

You seem to be obsessed with Luther; I wonder why.

 

[Walter]

You seem to be obsessed with Luther; I wonder why.

Probably because of his trying to take James out of the New Testament and I know you know why he would want to do so. I don't like to speak for people but Cathode's conclusion that sola fide is wrong is probably based on the following. First, because the Bible never says it anywhere. In fact it says just the opposite. Second, because Luther inserted the word “alone” in his German translation, there in Romans 3, although he knew perfectly well that the word “alone” was not in the Greek. Nowhere did the Holy Spirit ever inspire the writers of Scripture to say we’re saved by faith alone. Paul teaches we’re saved by faith, but in Galatians he says we’re saved by faith working in love.

 

[Silverhair]

As a former Baptist, I personally do not find Catholic apologist like Scott Hahn, Karll Keating, etc deceptive, but scholarly and truthful. I found Baptist cannot show any historical documents to show the Early Church held their beliefs. . I was amazed to find that I could find no trace of Evangelical Christianity in the Church prior to the sixteenth century. Even the Waldensians and followers of Wyclif knew nothing of justification by faith alone. Both groups participated in the sacraments of the Catholic Church and were originally “reform” movements, not churches. Not one of the early Church Fathers preached justification by faith alone. Wyclif died hearing Mass, unbaptized as a believer, satisfied with his Catholic infant baptism.

You want to talk about deception? How about the widely circulated (still) and debunked 'Trail Of Blood' most of you have read and probably have in your home libraries?

Then it would seem that they as with the RCC did not know they bible very well.

Rom_3:26 He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

Rom_3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Rom_4:5 However, to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Rom_5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Gal_2:16 know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal_3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and foretold the gospel to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

Gal_3:24 So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.