Questioning the reformation!

[Josheb]

How can Christ found the church on christ
Why do you suppose that Peter is mentioned?
Why say Peter is blessed?
Why change Peter’s name?
Thanks

How were martyred by Elizabeth?

Where does the Bible say this?

Why ask questions that have nothing to do with the op?

 

[Josheb]

Did you ever read the opening chapters of the book of Revelations? There's seven church's....I believe all had a problem but one.

All seven had problems. One overcame them.

Now let me ask you again, can you give an example if a church that doesn't have error in its doctrine?

Keep asking until an answer is posted.

I know it's not the Baptist or the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you sure? I know a lot of Baptists and Catholics who say otherwise. You should hear them when they get in the same room!

 

[Mod 5]

@donadams,

I have read through this entire thread. It has gotten off track from the subject of the opening post and several posts by you and a few others violate the forum's rules in part or whole. I am going to give you 12 hours (it's currently 7pm EDT) to get this thread back on topic before I start editing and deleting posts and if the posts continue off-topically after that then I will close the thread.

The title of this thread reads, "Questioning the Reformation."

Discuss that.

To the rest of you participating in the thread: the stated subject is the Reformation, not the Roman Catholic Church, apostles, New-Testament era ecclesiology, other periods or episodes of reform, nor any of the other digressions found in these nine pages. Tu quoque (you do it, too) is fallacy. This thread is not a license to rag on the Catholic Church (or Protestantism). Help don get back on the subject of questioning the Reformation.

From the Forum Rules:

3: Please make a conscious effort to post your opening posts in the appropriate board. Please specify a specific point(s) of inquiry or comment so that others understand the subject to be discussed. Please also make a conscious and deliberate attempt to post content relevant to the point of inquiry or comment specified in an opening post. For example, not every post is about end times. Not every thread on soteriology is about all of salvation. Do not hijack others' threads for your own purpose or agenda.​

6: Use self-control and focus on reconciliation when discussing differences. Disagreements exist, but that is not a license to post divisive content or violate the forum's rules. No bickering. Address the issue or specified subject or topic, not the person. Do not make derogatory personal remarks or your posts will be removed from the thread. Repeated offenses may result in temporary or permanent suspension.​

I recommend everyone go back and (re-)read the opening post and discuss the questioning of the Reformation relevant to what is stated in the opening post.

 

[donadams]

Why ask questions that have nothing to do with the op?

I’m not required to stick to the OP it’s my thread!

[Note from Mod5: You are required to stick to the op! Everyone is. Some forums do have such an expectation, but CCAM does. Please make adjustments accordingly when posting in CCAM]

 

[donadams]

Oh sorry, the reformation has everything to do with the Catholic Church, it’s is what they claimed to be reforming, so how do you reject and abandoned something and then claim to have reformed it?

Thanks

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Questioning the reformation:

Reformed truth? (theology)

Truth is divine! God is truth!

I am the way, the truth, and the life!
Jn 14:6

Truth is eternal, Unchangeable, immutable and Ir-reformable.

No new doctrine or public revelation:


The Church is of divine origin and is eternal!

Truth and the Church cannot be reformed! There is no error in God or his church! Jn 14:6 Jn 16:13

Christ revealed the truth and Christ teaches the truth to all men thru His church! Matt 28:19

Reformation?
Where does the Bible say have a reformation? “Bible only authority” therefore the so-called reforms had “no” authority!

What was reformed?
Truth and the church are of divine origin, they come from God and cannot be reformed!

Not even honest; nothing was reformed, they rejected the one true church Jn 10:16 founded and established by Christ on Peter matt 16:18 and the apostles matt 18:18 eph 2:20 His witnesses acts 1:8 lead into all truth Jn 16:13 and then teaching and sanctifying all men unto salvation. Matt 28:19 and started new ones when only Christ has authority Matt 28:18 to found the church. Matt 16:18


Where did Christ err in establishing the church
To accept the so-called “reformation” is to reject Christ and scripture Matt 16:18-19 shall not prevail
Is Christ powerless to defend his bride
And the purity of her doctrine

Church not dependent on scripture

The church was established before the New Testament scripture!

The church came first:
Existed first:
exercised authority and taught before there was a New Testament:
The church was taught by Christ in person for three years and wrote the New Testament!

Not a reformation but a revolt, protest, accusations and rebellion against Christ and His one true church!

Thanks

donadams in Post #1:

"Where does the Bible say have a reformation? 'Bible only authority' therefore the so-called reforms had 'no' authority!"

HEBREWS 9:9-10 - ESV— "According to this arrangement [old Law of Moses arrangement], gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation."

Jesus was the Reformer alluded to—in addition to His being a Change Agent, the Messiah, and the New Order or Redeemed Community.

Through biblical history, there have been diverse reformers—Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, Peter, Paul, but the greatest and most influential was/is Jesus.​

 

[Josheb]

Oh sorry, the reformation has everything to do with the Catholic Church, it’s is what they claimed to be reforming, so how do you reject and abandoned something and then claim to have reformed it?

Thanks

The RCC clearly needed reform. They eventually acknowledged this and had their own in-house reforms. These are facts of history, not opinions to be disputed as if untrue. It is not okay to sell indulgences. It is not okay to formalize such a practice. The thinking that forms those policies, procedures, and practices is wholly corrupt and in need of reform. The premise that salvation can be obtained by works, or that one can work one's way into salvation is also wholly corrupt.

When you defend modern Catholicism, you are missing the boat.

When discussing the Reformation, what you need to be discussing is 15th and 16th century Catholicism. The moment you brought Catholicism into the thread you were mistaken, and that problem is made worse by thinking 21st century Catholicism is relevant. You've made a mess of your own op! There were very real and serious problems in 15th and 16th century Catholicism that needed redress. Had Catholics self-corrected and not tried to unjustly murder the Catholic men trying to seek that change there would not have been a Reformation. The only people the RCC can blame for the Reformation is the RCC itself.

And if you want to discuss either the Reformation, reform in general, or modern Reformed thought, doctrine, and practice then that can be done without ever mentioning any other point of view. There's not a single need to assert or defend anything Catholic. ALL the Reformed believers in this forum discuss Reformed views every day without even thinking about Catholic alternatives.

You should try it sometime .

The Reformation occurred in the context of the then-existing Roman Catholicism and a lot has changed in the last 500 years. For one, the Roman Catholic Church has been significantly influenced by Marxism and is in need of another reformation. But that's a topic for another thread . In this op, you want to question the reformers. Good, then do so. You think "reformed truth" is an oxymoron because you wrongly imagine Catholicism to be the only truth and the whole only truth. You think "Truth is eternal, Unchangeable, immutable and Ir-reformable," and therefore the RCC is eternal, unchangeable, immutable, and it's not possible to reform it because it needs no reforming. One of the problems in the op is that you did not mention the RCC and were not clear about your motives. Another problem is the plethora of logical fallacies like arguing supposedly Reformed views that have nothing to do with Reformed thought, doctrine or practice and the resulting strawmen. Then the is the false equivalence between truth and Chruch, conflating the category of truth with the application of truth, the genetic and false cause fallacies inherent in thinking the origin of something proves its truth and veracity, the ever-shifting onuses contained in loaded questions and burdens of proof, the pretense of an appeal to authority when Christian history -including that within the RCC - is filled with examples of reform (even in the Bible), the appeal to purity, and the false dichotomy where sectarianism does, shouldn't or can't share common ground. I'm not counting the numerous factual errors (like those attributed to Peter).

In other words, the posts defending this op are a mess. Scripturally and logically. It would have been much, much better to stick to one point, state it plainly, and discuss i with little or no digression.


Exactly as the forum asks all its members to do. Otherwise, any discussion of Roman Catholicism can be posted in the Roman Catholic board where it belongs.

 

[Josheb]

So, in light of Post 180.....

How about you start over @donadams? Specify one particularly point you'd like to make about the Reformation, state your position on that point with a little content explaining why that position is held, and then avail the thread to a discussion of that specified point.

 

[Mod 5]

Note to everyone posting in this thread:

I have gone through the entire thread and edited or deleted content that was either off-topic or that which violated other rules of the forum's tos. As everyone can see there is a lot that has been deleted. As a consequence I reviewed the deleted content a second time and re-instated some of the posts because some of the content was loosely connected to the topic of the Reformation and the concerns @donadams appears to want discussed. It is my opinion that many of you were baited into digressions and unnecessarily took the bait because much of the content is sound but has nothing to do with the Reformation and the premise a true Church, one of truth, containing truth, has no need for reform.

I have also made an example of this thread. The number of posts deleted is alarming. I suspect some of you may feel provoked simply by the number of deletions. Disagreements with the moderation can be addressed in private as stipulated by the forum's rules. Every single one of the deleted posts violates the forum's rules. There are many threads in the forum that digress far afield of the title's or op's stated subject and turn into bickering, and derogatory comments. That is much different than a digression that occurs naturally due as a subject unfolds, a digression that remains op-relevant and is readily brought back to the subject being discussed.

We are trying to do some things different here in CCAM, and one of those differences is having discussions where the participants purpose and persist in topical exchange, where they are self-regulating and making a conscious effort not to bait others or be baited by others into digression, where they recognize digression and return appropriately to the subject of the thread and the board in which it occurs (this forum has a specific section where matters of ecclesiology can and should be discussed). We do not want a forum where a few members think it appropriate to derail every thread with their favorite subjects. We hope for and expect polite, respectful, and topical discourse. I do not think I have ever seen a forum that emphasized conciliatory discussion of differences. This forum does so. Episodes where moderation this severe should be rare.




So, @donadams, this is an opportunity to get the thread back on topic. Perhaps, as one of the early posters suggested, you could specify just one or two concerns you have about the Reformation and, as another poster has suggested, state your specific position and invite comment and inquiry pertaining to your specified concerns about the Reformation. It's a worthy topic and can and should be discussed in a conciliatory and respectful manner.





I remind everyone: if every CCAM member does their part then the moderators have very little to do.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No councils do not change the nature of the church much less reject the church and start new ones without any authority
Only apostles have authority none of the so-called reformers were apostles

The Apostle Paul rebuked the Apostle Peter directly to his face in Galatians 2:11-14 because he was to be blamed when it came to Peter backing down about associating with the believing Gentiles. The Apostle Peter needed correction on his fear of those of the circumcision, and the Apostle Paul stepped in to call him on this point of error. This means that even the Apostles are to be judged by the "truth of the gospel" which Paul was using.

And that "truth of the gospel" is available to every believer. We are to be like the "more noble Bereans" in Acts 17:11, and check the scriptures daily about things we read and hear, to make sure those things align with the scriptures. Even the Apostle Paul commended those Bereans for checking out what he himself was teaching them.

So those of the Reformation were only attempting to copy the Bereans of Acts 17:11, for which they should be commended as well.

 

[donadams]

donadams in Post #1:

"Where does the Bible say have a reformation? 'Bible only authority' therefore the so-called reforms had 'no' authority!"

HEBREWS 9:9-10 - ESV— "According to this arrangement [old Law of Moses arrangement], gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation."

Jesus was the Reformer alluded to—in addition to His being a Change Agent, the Messiah, and the New Order or Redeemed Community.

Through biblical history, there have been diverse reformers—Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, Peter, Paul, but the greatest and most influential was/is Jesus.​

The time of reformation is the time of Christ not Luther?
Christ reformed the old covenant into the new so there must be many similarities.

So, in light of Post 180.....

How about you start over @donadams? Specify one particularly point you'd like to make about the Reformation, state your position on that point with a little content explaining why that position is held, and then avail the thread to a discussion of that specified point.

what authority was there to even have a so-called reformation?

 

[donadams]

No restrictions on my threads.
Feel free to defend the reformation, sola’s as you like!

It’s all good!

Thanks

 

[donadams]

The Apostle Paul rebuked the Apostle Peter directly to his face in Galatians 2:11-14 because he was to be blamed when it came to Peter backing down about associating with the believing Gentiles. The Apostle Peter needed correction on his fear of those of the circumcision, and the Apostle Paul stepped in to call him on this point of error. This means that even the Apostles are to be judged by the "truth of the gospel" which Paul was using.

And that "truth of the gospel" is available to every believer. We are to be like the "more noble Bereans" in Acts 17:11, and check the scriptures daily about things we read and hear, to make sure those things align with the scriptures. Even the Apostle Paul commended those Bereans for checking out what he himself was teaching them.

So those of the Reformation were only attempting to copy the Bereans of Acts 17:11, for which they should be commended as well.

The so-called noble perfect ones did not do what they say about them

In matters of discipline and administration (governed by human wisdom) an apostle can oppose another apostle, notice it was Peter who settled the matter. Acts 15:7 as in acts 1:15 and acts 2 Peter “stood up” and acted with authority!

 

[Josheb]

The time of reformation is the time of Christ not Luther?
Christ reformed the old covenant into the new so there must be many similarities.

what authority was there to even have a so-called reformation?

Scripture, first of all. There are multiple places where scripture directs the confrontation of wrongdoers, the expulsion of false teachers, and the exclusion those refusing correction. Second, the immoral and thoroughly unscriptural practices of leaders combined with their abject failure to submit to scripture and consider their own wrongdoing empowers others to replace them, their abhorrent teachings, and the aberrant practices.

The Church was reformed at Pentecost. The Church also initiated reforms based on the influence of others when Paul was brought to the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). The Church again initiated reforms as the gospel entered into Gentile territory and persecution moved from the Jews to the Romans. As someone else noted Paul confronted Peter for Peter's hypocritical double standards and thereby reformed Peter's practices and those of the congregations he oversaw. Compare what the council in Acts 15 said to Paul before sending him to minister to the Gentiles with what Paul instructed in his epistles on those same subjects. Doctrines and practices changed.

Despite assertions to the contrary, it does appear James was the head of the Jerusalem council and not Peter. Peter left Jerusalem and eventually made his way to Rome. He was not among the Jerusalem leadership, and he most certainly was not the first Pope (despite teachings asserting otherwise).

In fact, the early history of the Church is one of considerable diversity that was addressed solely through vigorous and prayerful debate during a time when the structures of the modern Roman Catholic Church did not yet exist. Many priests were married and many kept concubines. Augustine was one of the latter and it was primarily through his personal beliefs (not doctrine or dogma) that the abstinent priesthood was even considered. Clerical prohibitions against marriage did not become formal practice until almost 700 years after Augustine! Pope Adrian VI sought to reform the doctrines, practices, and excesses of his predecessors, Alexander VI, Julius II, Pius III and Leo X , but his service was short-lived (less than 2 years). He attempted to prevent the Protestant Reformation by initiating in-house reforms. After the Protestant Reformation the RCC began to make reforms of its own, including the institutionalization of a seminary system to unify teaching, a return to a focus on spirituality in religious life that emphasized a personal life with Christ, and the codification of the Mass. Sadly, it also included the inquisition.

There are at least two dozen religious Orders within the RCC. For all intents and purposes these are comparable to Protestant denominations. While it is true these Orders do submit to the authority of the Pope and Magisterium, they have their own leaders, their own philosophies, and their own practices. There are significant differences between the Benedictines (who institutionalized and emphasized monastic life), the Jesuits (who were founded specifically for the purpose of reform) and the Franciscans (ascetics whole practice austerity and own nothing). Each Order (or sect) sought to address a real or perceived problem and did so with the acceptance of the Pope.

None of those reforms would have been necessary if they were a true Church. None of them would have been necessary had they attained the truth from the beginning and practiced. Therefore, all those real and rhetorical questions about truth being absolute and never needing reform prove either false or self-indicting.


There were real problems within the (RCC) Church that prompted the Protestant Reformation and they are not being discussed in this thread. Many reforms made in the Reformation were returns to precepts found in scripture. Many were not. All of the early Reformers were Catholic and, as a consequence, many of the RCC practices continued within Protestantism for a long time. Baptism being salvific was one of them. The doctrines associated with water baptism were eventually reformed with Protestantism, as were other thoughts, doctrines, and practices. While that was happening the RCC continued to make reforms within itself. They (the RCC) knew it was wrong to sell forgiveness for profit. A simple Google search of "worst popes in history" readily shows corruption within the RCC - not because a few Popes were bad men behaving badly, but because the entire Roman Catholic leadership tolerated them.

1 Corinthians 5:1-13
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst..................... I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

The Church has always needed reform and frequently done so.

What authority was there to even have a so-called reformation?

God.

Deuteronomy 17:7
So you must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 17:12
So you must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 21:21
So you must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:21
So you must purge the evil from among you.

Maybe I have my Church history incorrect. Was there ever a Pope who was removed from office because of his immoral conduct? Let me know.

 

[Arial]

Oh sorry, the reformation has everything to do with the Catholic Church, it’s is what they claimed to be reforming, so how do you reject and abandoned something and then claim to have reformed it?

Thanks

There was no choice. The RCC refused to accept the solas.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The so-called noble perfect ones did not do what they say about them

Huhh?? Paul lied about the Bereans??

Scripture, first of all. There are multiple places where scripture directs the confrontation of wrongdoers, the expulsion of false teachers, and the exclusion those refusing correction. Second, the immoral and thoroughly unscriptural practices of leaders combined with their abject failure to submit to scripture and consider their own wrongdoing empowers others to replace them, their abhorrent teachings, and the aberrant practices.

ABSOLUTELY. Paul gave to Timothy the protocol for dealing with erring ministers of the gospel in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. If an elder committed sin, evidence of that sin by two or three witnesses was to be given before ALL the church, and that elder rebuked before them ALL, so that other elders would fear to fall into the same disgrace.

The position of serving as an elder is not inviolable and irrevocable. If an elder veers away from teaching the truth of the gospel from the scriptures, they have abandoned the very reason why they are in that position in the first place. Christ said that these who wished to be "first" should be called "the servant of all" (Mark 9:35). Elders are answerable to the truth of the scriptures, and any member of the congregation can be one of the two or three witnesses using the scriptures to call them into account if an elder departs from those scriptures.

 

[Josheb]

ABSOLUTELY. Paul gave to Timothy the protocol for dealing with erring ministers of the gospel in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. If an elder committed sin, evidence of that sin by two or three witnesses was to be given before ALL the church, and that elder rebuked before them ALL, so that other elders would fear to fall into the same disgrace.

The position of serving as an elder is not inviolable and irrevocable. If an elder veers away from teaching the truth of the gospel from the scriptures, they have abandoned the very reason why they are in that position in the first place. Christ said that these who wished to be "first" should be called "the servant of all" (Mark 9:35). Elders are answerable to the truth of the scriptures, and any member of the congregation can be one of the two or three witnesses using the scriptures to call them into account if an elder departs from those scriptures.

Focus.

Apply that content specifically to the Reformation.

The so-called noble perfect ones did not do what they say about them

In matters of discipline and administration (governed by human wisdom) an apostle can oppose another apostle, notice it was Peter who settled the matter. Acts 15:7 as in acts 1:15 and acts 2 Peter “stood up” and acted with authority!

Focus.

Apply that content specifically to the Reformation.

 

[Mr GLee]

1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Questioning the reformation:

Reformed truth? (theology)

Truth is divine! God is truth!

I am the way, the truth, and the life!
Jn 14:6

Truth is eternal, Unchangeable, immutable and Ir-reformable.

No new doctrine or public revelation:


The Church is of divine origin and is eternal!

Truth and the Church cannot be reformed! There is no error in God or his church! Jn 14:6 Jn 16:13

Christ revealed the truth and Christ teaches the truth to all men thru His church! Matt 28:19

Reformation?
Where does the Bible say have a reformation? “Bible only authority” therefore the so-called reforms had “no” authority!

What was reformed?
Truth and the church are of divine origin, they come from God and cannot be reformed!

Not even honest; nothing was reformed, they rejected the one true church Jn 10:16 founded and established by Christ on Peter matt 16:18 and the apostles matt 18:18 eph 2:20 His witnesses acts 1:8 lead into all truth Jn 16:13 and then teaching and sanctifying all men unto salvation. Matt 28:19 and started new ones when only Christ has authority Matt 28:18 to found the church. Matt 16:18


Where did Christ err in establishing the church
To accept the so-called “reformation” is to reject Christ and scripture Matt 16:18-19 shall not prevail
Is Christ powerless to defend his bride
And the purity of her doctrine

Church not dependent on scripture

The church was established before the New Testament scripture!

The church came first:
Existed first:
exercised authority and taught before there was a New Testament:
The church was taught by Christ in person for three years and wrote the New Testament!

Not a reformation but a revolt, protest, accusations and rebellion against Christ and His one true church!

Thanks

Hi I would offer. . the 15 century reformation that restored the government of God.. . the government of faith. . . the unseen work of God . It is a carbon copy of the 1st century reformation the Spirit of Christ taking away the governments of mankind as oral traditions of dying mankind .

Kings as fathers a hierarchy government of dying mankind. In 1 Samuel 8 the atheist Jew became jealous of the surrounding pagan nations and demanded a king . God said to Samuel its not you the temporal seen they do not refuse to obey but me the unseen King of Kings and Lord of lords.

God gave them over to do that which they should not desired until the time of the first century reformation.

The period of time kings in Israel used as a parable or the word figure same a parable the signified understanding. . the shadows that added nothing to salvation the ceremonial law or some call sacraments disappeared .

Hebrew 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

 

[donadams]

There was no choice. The RCC refused to accept the solas.

On what authority?

The church was taught by Christ three years in person so it naturally condemned the cola’s and those who invented them!

 

[donadams]

Huhh?? Paul lied about the Bereans??


ABSOLUTELY. Paul gave to Timothy the protocol for dealing with erring ministers of the gospel in 1 Timothy 5:19-20. If an elder committed sin, evidence of that sin by two or three witnesses was to be given before ALL the church, and that elder rebuked before them ALL, so that other elders would fear to fall into the same disgrace.

The position of serving as an elder is not inviolable and irrevocable. If an elder veers away from teaching the truth of the gospel from the scriptures, they have abandoned the very reason why they are in that position in the first place. Christ said that these who wished to be "first" should be called "the servant of all" (Mark 9:35). Elders are answerable to the truth of the scriptures, and any member of the congregation can be one of the two or three witnesses using the scriptures to call them into account if an elder departs from those scriptures.

No but the Barean church does!
They original bareans accepted the truth on the authority of Paul as an apostle of Jesus Christ, then later went to search the scripture, they claim you reject the authority of Christ in his apostles and search scripture first like all fundamentalists do who act from pride that leads to protesting rebellion.
Not including you btw.