What does it mean to be “Reformed”?

[Carbon]

What does it mean to be “Reformed”?​

Historically Reformed
– Affirm the great “sola’s” (Latin for “only”) of the Reformation.
Sola Gratia…Grace Alone
Sola Fide…Faith Alone
Solus Christus…Christ Alone
Sola Scriptura…Scripture Alone
Soli Deo Gloria…To the Glory of God Alone
To summarize, salvation by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone, according to the Scriptures Alone, to the Glory of God Alone.
– Affirm and promote a profoundly high view of the supremacy and sovereignty of God in all things and sees God as actively involved in His creation, governing and overseeing all the affairs of men. cf. Psalm 115:3; Job 34:14-15; 37:6-13; Daniel 4:35.
– Affirm the utter dependence of sinful man upon God in all things, especially concerning salvation.
– Affirm the Doctrines of Grace (commonly referred to as Calvinism), which display God as the author of salvation from beginning to end.
The acrostic TULIP (which is a summation of the Canons of Dort) is the most familiar way of delineating the doctrines of Grace. TULIP is made up of 5 points, which are:
* T – Total Depravity
* U – Unconditional Election
* L – Limited Atonement
* I – Irresistible Grace
* P – Perseverance, and Preservation, of the Saints
– Creedal – To affirm the great creeds of the historic, orthodox church.
The Apostles’ Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Definition of Chalcedon
– Confessional – To affirm AT LEAST ONE of the great confessions of the historic orthodox church.
* The Westminster Standards
– The Westminster Confession of Faith
– The Westminster Longer Catechism
– The Westminster Shorter Catechism
* Reformed Baptist Standards
– 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
– The Baptist Catechism
– Orthodox Catechism
* The Three Forms of Unity
– The Belgic Confession of Faith
– The Heidelberg Catechism
– The Canons of Dortrecht
– Covenantal – To affirm the great covenants of Scripture and see those covenants as the means by which God interacts with and accomplishes His purposes in His creation, with mankind. The Scriptures contain numerous examples of God “covenanting” with man, establishing and ordaining a variety of covenants.
– A high view of Scripture, in it’s necessity, infallibility, sufficiency and internal consistency, and our dependence upon it to learn what God has revealed about Himself, His commands, and His way of salvation.
– A high view of the church in preaching (the exposition and application of God’s Word), the ordinances, discipline, prayer, worship (Regulative Principal), fellowship, and evangelism, all encompassed in the keeping of the Christian Sabbath, commonly called the Lord’s Day.
– A distinctly Biblical, Christian worldview that permeates all of life, a life lived in the world, but at the same time, a life not oriented to the world and it’s standards, but oriented to God’s Word.
– A clear understanding of the distinction between, and relationship of, Law and Gospel.
The Law has Three Uses:
1) The civil use. The law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin. The law restrains evil through punishment. Though the law cannot change the heart, it can inhibit sin by threats of judgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offences.
2) The pedagogical use. The law also shows people the perfect righteousness of God, and their sinfulness which deserves punishment, and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves, found in the Gospel alone.
3) The moral, normative, sanctifying use. The moral standards of the law provide guidance for believers as they seek to live in humble gratitude for the grace God has shown us. This use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been justified by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from works.
The 2nd use of the Law and its perfect requirement points us to the Gospel (good news) of the purchased redemption and free grace of the Son, for God’s people, and the Gospel, once applied by the Holy Spirit, then points us back to the third use of the Law in delight to obey its commands to the glory of God as a new creation in Christ Jesus.

 

[Josheb]

Ooooo.....

Let's not leave out scripture. There are about 300 verses in the Bible commanding various forms of return God and the entire books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and all four of the gospels are about reform and reformation. Nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT. Every time we read, "You have heard it said, _______________________, but I say, ___________________________," he isn't just correcting bad thinking, doctrine, and practice, and wasn't particularly preaching anything new when he referenced Tanakh; he was teaching the original meaning. He was teaching reform.

The Reformers of the Reformation stood firmly on scripture.

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures, or by evident reason (for I put my faith neither in popes nor councils alone, since it is established that they have erred again and again and contradicted one another), I am bound by the scriptural evidence adduced by me, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot, I will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor right to act against one’s conscience. God help me. Amen." Martin Luther​

"I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word; otherwise, I did nothing"​

Just saying

 

[Carbon]

Ooooo.....

Let's not leave out scripture.

Of course not.

 

[donadams]

It really means to reject Christ, His revealed truth, and His church and start you own church with your own doctrine!

Thanks

 

[donadams]

It really means to reject Christ, His revealed truth, and His church and start you own church with your own doctrine!

Thanks

Can’t change the history!

 

[donadams]

Truth divine and comes from God!

How can truth be reformed!

How can truth be replaced with the traditions of men? (Solas)

Christ is the truth! Jn 14:6

How can Christ be reformed by sinful men?

 

[Josheb]

Truth divine and comes from God!

And the only way anyone would know that is if they read the Bible, which was written by men given that truth.

How can truth be reformed!

Red herring. Truth is not reformed. Errors, departures from the truth, are reformed so the errors are brought back to truth.

How can truth be replaced with the traditions of men? (Solas)

It isn't. Red herring and false dichotomy. The solas do not "replace" anything.

Christ is the truth! Jn 14:6

Yes, he is. Solus Christus! Solus Christus is the assertion that Christ alone is the basis on which the ungodly are justified in God’s sight.

How can Christ be reformed by sinful men?

Who says Christ can be reformed?

Do NOT deny this question. Show up! No one states Christ can be reformed yet you have implied someone does. PROVE IT.







This forum needs a thread where members can select absurd posts for relegation to the foolish bin. There's not a word of truth in Post #6, not a sentence of truth, and the whole post is falsehood.
.

 

[Carbon]

It really means to reject Christ, His revealed truth, and His church and start you own church with your own doctrine!

Thanks

Luther tried to help.

 

[Josheb]

It really means to reject Christ, His revealed truth, and His church and start you own church with your own doctrine!

Which is exactly what the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church did. They lied, added to scripture, whored around, and murdered anyone they didn't like. They literally created a sect specifically for hunting down dissent to be tortured and killed.

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Guilty on all counts.

Can’t change the history!

That is correct. The idolatrous, depraved history of the RCC cannot be changed. Their practices and the perverse doctrines they invented (like selling forgiveness for sins) can and should be reformed.

"Many people assume that the Catholic Church stopped granting indulgences after Luther’s famous rejection of them. Indeed, nearly 50 years later, Pope Pius V put a stop to their sale. However, Pius V also affirmed the validity of indulgences themselves so long as no money was exchanged. By 1563, he had endorsed a comprehensive doctrine on indulgences that emerged from a series of meetings with high-ranking clergy, called the Council of Trent. This comprehensive doctrine, revised in 1967 by Pope Paul VI, remains one of the church’s teachings to this day." (from The Conversation website)​

Here's what Catholicdotcom states on the matter of indulgences.

"That’s like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.
In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: “Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.” The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses.... In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina..."​

Yet when the Roman Catholic priest, Martin Luther, in the Church's good standing wrote about it he was attacked and ex communicated. He spoke the truth about the truth for the truth. Had the RCC handled the matter as they should have there wouldn't be a single Protestant today. We'd all still be RCC! Has the RCC ever taken responsibility for that truth-forsaken error? Yes! As the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation approaches Pope Francis said the following...

"As the bishop of Rome and pastor of the Catholic Church, I would like to invoke mercy and forgiveness for the non-evangelical behavior of Catholics toward Christians of other churches. At the same time, I invite all Catholic brothers and sisters to forgive if today, or in the past, they have suffered offense by other Christians."​

Notice the Pope himself acknowledged the existence of other churches, other ecclesia. There exist others who have been called out by God in service to Christ.


That is RCC history, the facts of which cannot be changed. The RCC reformed its own doctrines. That should not have been necessary and would never have occurred if what you argue did not apply. The truth cannot be reformed, but bad thinking, bad doctrine, and bad practice can be reformed wherever it departs from the truth of God. Jesus never once sold forgiveness for sin.

He paid for it!​

That is the truth.

 

[donadams]

And the only way anyone would know that is if they read the Bible, which was written by men given that truth.

Red herring. Truth is not reformed. Errors, departures from the truth, are reformed so the errors are brought back to truth.

It isn't. Red herring and false dichotomy. The solas do not "replace" anything.

Yes, he is. Solus Christus! Solus Christus is the assertion that Christ alone is the basis on which the ungodly are justified in God’s sight.

Who says Christ can be reformed?

Do NOT deny this question. Show up! No one states Christ can be reformed yet you have implied someone does. PROVE IT.







This forum needs a thread where members can select absurd posts for relegation to the foolish bin. There's not a word of truth in Post #6, not a sentence of truth, and the whole post is falsehood.
.

Where do get such ideas?
One at a time
First

And the only way anyone would know that is if they read the Bible,

Faith cometh by hearing not reading

Christ established the church to teach and sanctify all men unto eternal salvation! Matt 16:18-19 & 28:19

Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3) then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit! (Jn 16:13) one faith (eph 4:5) the faith delivered to the apostles (Jude 1:3)

Scripture Verses that contradict the “Bible is our ONLY AUTHORITY”!

Matt 5:14
Matt 6:33
Matt 13:11
Matt 18:17
Matt 28:19
Lk 1:4
Lk 10:16
Jn 8:32
Jn 16:13
Jn 20:21
Acts 1:8
Acts 2:42
Acts 8:26
Acts 8:31
Acts 18:25
Rom 10:15
1 cor 4:11
1 cor 11:23
1 thes 2:23
2 thes 2:2
2 thes 2:15
Col 2:7
Eph 4:5
Heb 13:7
Heb 13:17
1 Tim 3:15
1 Jn 1:3-5
1 Jn 4:6
2 Jn 1:12
Jude 1:3

How can it be said scripture is “sole authority” or the only source of truth or the rule of faith when scripture says we must hear the church Matt 18:17 the apostles are the light of the world Matt 5:14 we must hold the doctrine of the apostles acts 2:42 the church is the pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim 3:15

Nobody believed the solas until 1500 yrs after Christ founded the holy apostolic church!

 

[donadams]

You also have revival but the church and faith are not dead, you can’t revive something that’s not dead!

Red herring. Truth is not reformed. Errors, departures from the truth, are reformed so the errors are brought back to truth.

Jn 8:32 apostolic church don’t need scripture to know truth, they were taught in person three years by truth itself!
Jn 16:13 guarantee of the HS!
Lk 10:16 same truth as Christ!
Matt 16:18-19 shall Not prevail !

 

[donadams]

Who says Christ can be reformed?

Do NOT deny this question. Show up! No one states Christ can be reformed yet you have implied someone does. PROVE IT.

The reformers, they say they have reformed theology
They may not realize it but to say there is reform or reformed theology they are saying there is reformed truth and Christ is the truth! Jn 14:6

 

[donadams]

Luther tried to help.

Did he submit to proper authority under Christ?

 

[Carbon]

You also have revival but the church and faith are not dead, you can’t revive something that’s not dead!

Red herring. Truth is not reformed. Errors, departures from the truth, are reformed so the errors are brought back to truth.

Jn 8:32 apostolic church don’t need scripture to know truth, they were taught in person three years by truth itself!
Jn 16:13 guarantee of the HS!
Lk 10:16 same truth as Christ!
Matt 16:18-19 shall Not prevail !

Do you know how and what reformed means? It does not seem like you do.

So I will not misunderstand you,....l. would you explain your understanding of reformed as far as a reformed Christian or church is concerned?

Thanks Don.

 

[Josheb]

Where do get such ideas?

I provided links to everything. The questions shows you are being obtuse.

One at a time
First

Faith cometh by hearing not reading

The two are not mutually exclusive. False dichotomy.

Christ established the church to teach and sanctify all men unto eternal salvation! Matt 16:18-19 & 28:19

That is correct. He did not establish the Church to teach men Roman Catholicism.

Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3)

Yes, and as Pope Francis stated, there are churches other than the RCC.

then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit!

Yep. The problem is the history of the RCC is filled with errors NOT occurring by the Holy Spirit and directly contradicted by both the written word and the precedents it reports. Hence the Reformation. You do not get to judge others without first cleaning up your own house and that begins with an honest and forthcoming acknowledgment of RCC error. You've been in the forum for eight months now and discussed these matters with multiple posters and not once been honest and forthcoming about the RCC's mixed history with God's truth.

(Jn 16:13) one faith (eph 4:5) the faith delivered to the apostles (Jude 1:3)

Scripture Verses that contradict the “Bible is our ONLY AUTHORITY”!

Sola scripture does not mean scripture is the "ONLY" authority. I have discussed this with you multiple times. The first time your lack of knowledge might have been a simple mistake but because I and others have told you what sola scriptura teaches and its doctrinally stated limits we know you know. When you post falsehood you know to be false that is called lying. Stop lying.

Sola scriptura applies solely to the authority of scripture and its sufficiency for understanding salvation and the Christian life. An atheist stranded on a deserted island could find salvation if a Bible washed up on the shore and s/he read it. S/he does not need the RCC.

Matt 5:14
Matt 6:33
Matt 13:11
Matt 18:17
Matt 28:19
Lk 1:4
Lk 10:16
Jn 8:32
Jn 16:13
Jn 20:21
Acts 1:8
Acts 2:42
Acts 8:26
Acts 8:31
Acts 18:25
Rom 10:15
1 cor 4:11
1 cor 11:23
1 thes 2:23
2 thes 2:2
2 thes 2:15
Col 2:7
Eph 4:5
Heb 13:7
Heb 13:17
1 Tim 3:15
1 Jn 1:3-5
1 Jn 4:6
2 Jn 1:12
Jude 1:3

ROTFLMBO!!!

YOU JUST APPEALED TO SCRIPTURE TO PROVE YOU POST AUTHORITATIVE!!!

When people practice things they report not to value that is called hypocrisy. Stop being hypocritical.

How can it be said scripture is “sole authority” or the only source of truth or the rule of faith when scripture says we must hear the church?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Your argument leaves the deserted island individual incapable of salvation. That is a bad doctrine.

Matt 18:17 the apostles are the light of the world Matt 5:14 we must hold the doctrine of the apostles acts 2:42 the church is the pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim 3:15

None of which precludes scripture from being authoritative and sufficient. Nice red herring.

Nobody believed the solas until 1500 yrs after Christ founded the holy apostolic church!

Sure they did. They did not use that label but everyone, including the RCC, believed the Bible authoritative and sufficient. The Church is built on the word!





So lets' review. I've received two posts in this thread (a multitude of them in other threads) and in those two posts the matter of Catholic error, Catholic abuse of scripture, Catholic leaders' sinfulness, Catholic doctrinal and practical malfeasance and the need for reform and the history of reforms the RCC made because the early Reformers were correct has been ignored and instead the posts contain multiple red herrings, multiple false dichotomies, multiple factual falsehoods, along with a pair of false equivalence, a straw man, and one outright lie.

The Roman Catholic Church would not approve if they'd read those posts. I suspect they'd ask you to stop because you're not helping them and the fallacious content is foolish, fruitless, wholly unscriptural, and avoidant. You are not a very good apologist for the RCC and, as a consequence you are wasting everyone's time because one of the reasons the forum exists is so that its members can improve and refine their arguments.





The history of the Roman Catholic Church is filled with ungodly and unscriptural practices and that history cannot be changed. That history includes the selling of indulgences, which is the impetus for the Protestant Reformation. That too is a fact of history that cannot be changed. So too is the persecutorial, prosecutorial, torturous and murderous history of the RCC's handling of what is more often than not sound, just, valid, and scriptural inquiry and calls for reform. Those are facts that cannot be changed. The Roman Catholic Church did eventually respond to the internal and external calls for reform by making changes within. That is a fact of history. It cannot be changed. The Pope himself apologized for the Roman Catholic Church's abuse of those in other Churches. That is a fact of history. It cannot be changed.

Can't change the history!

No, you cannot.

The Roman Catholic Church cannot change its history. Neither can you change the last eight month's history of lying. Stop lying. Acknowledge the RCC's errors.

 

[donadams]

Which is exactly what the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church did. They lied, added to scripture, whored around, and murdered anyone they didn't like. They literally created a sect specifically for hunting down dissent to be tortured and killed.

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Guilty on all counts.

That is correct. The idolatrous, depraved history of the RCC cannot be changed. Their practices and the perverse doctrines they invented (like selling forgiveness for sins) can and should be reformed.

"Many people assume that the Catholic Church stopped granting indulgences after Luther’s famous rejection of them. Indeed, nearly 50 years later, Pope Pius V put a stop to their sale. However, Pius V also affirmed the validity of indulgences themselves so long as no money was exchanged. By 1563, he had endorsed a comprehensive doctrine on indulgences that emerged from a series of meetings with high-ranking clergy, called the Council of Trent. This comprehensive doctrine, revised in 1967 by Pope Paul VI, remains one of the church’s teachings to this day." (from The Conversation website)​

Here's what Catholicdotcom states on the matter of indulgences.

"That’s like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.​

In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: “Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.” The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses.... In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina..."​

Yet when the Roman Catholic priest, Martin Luther, in the Church's good standing wrote about it he was attacked and ex communicated. He spoke the truth about the truth for the truth. Had the RCC handled the matter as they should have there wouldn't be a single Protestant today. We'd all still be RCC! Has the RCC ever taken responsibility for that truth-forsaken error? Yes! As the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation approaches Pope Francis said the following...

"As the bishop of Rome and pastor of the Catholic Church, I would like to invoke mercy and forgiveness for the non-evangelical behavior of Catholics toward Christians of other churches. At the same time, I invite all Catholic brothers and sisters to forgive if today, or in the past, they have suffered offense by other Christians."​

Notice the Pope himself acknowledged the existence of other churches, other ecclesia. There exist others who have been called out by God in service to Christ.


That is RCC history, the facts of which cannot be changed. The RCC reformed its own doctrines. That should not have been necessary and would never have occurred if what you argue did not apply. The truth cannot be reformed, but bad thinking, bad doctrine, and bad practice can be reformed wherever it departs from the truth of God. Jesus never once sold forgiveness for sin.

He paid for it!​

That is the truth.

No Luther was excommunicated for the five false sola’s and rejecting authority


1st of all these are based on and accusations

Salvation has nothing to do with indulgences!

nor do indulgences have anything to do with the forgiveness of sin!

Salvation is God’s mercy to us thru His church by grace thru the sacraments!

An indulgence is a merit of Jesus Christ thru his blood passion and death! Jn 1:16 & 1:29

Cannot sell indulgences
There were indulgences granted to those who supported the building of saint peters, not selling, (donations) but if you chose to make a donation you could get an indulgence, but there were and are many other ways to get them without making a donation! Not a requirement

You did something and got a favorable response, like buying a dozen dognuts and get one free, they may accuse you cannot selling 13 but you actually only sold 12 and gave one free.

Salvation is of grace with mercy and the forgiveness of sins, but the temporal punishment due to sin Christ did not take away, just like he did not take away our sin nature and restore up to the state of innocence in the garden.

Example: a child breaks a window with his baseball, his father forgives him totally, but the child work and earn money to pay for the window, and we must pray, fast, alms, penance, carry our cross and practice Christian virtues to expiate the temporal punishment due to our sins, God provides for everything in His goodness and gives us ample means to do this, and it purifies our souls in this life or if not he also provides a means of purification in the next.

And we can pray for and do penance and gain indulgences for those being purified since they are in the communion of saints like us and those already perfected in heaven!

An indulgence can only be applied to the punishment due for sins already forgiven!
From Christ’s merits! Jn 1:16-17



Protestants: “the practice buying God’s blessings”!

Support our ministry and God will
Open the windows of heaven and pour fourth blessings upon you!
(Ignore double standard as usual)

 

[donadams]

Which is exactly what the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church did. They lied, added to scripture, whored around, and murdered anyone they didn't like. They literally created a sect specifically for hunting down dissent to be tortured and killed.

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Guilty on all counts.

That is correct. The idolatrous, depraved history of the RCC cannot be changed. Their practices and the perverse doctrines they invented (like selling forgiveness for sins) can and should be reformed.

"Many people assume that the Catholic Church stopped granting indulgences after Luther’s famous rejection of them. Indeed, nearly 50 years later, Pope Pius V put a stop to their sale. However, Pius V also affirmed the validity of indulgences themselves so long as no money was exchanged. By 1563, he had endorsed a comprehensive doctrine on indulgences that emerged from a series of meetings with high-ranking clergy, called the Council of Trent. This comprehensive doctrine, revised in 1967 by Pope Paul VI, remains one of the church’s teachings to this day." (from The Conversation website)​

Here's what Catholicdotcom states on the matter of indulgences.

"That’s like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.​

In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: “Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.” The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses.... In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina..."​

Yet when the Roman Catholic priest, Martin Luther, in the Church's good standing wrote about it he was attacked and ex communicated. He spoke the truth about the truth for the truth. Had the RCC handled the matter as they should have there wouldn't be a single Protestant today. We'd all still be RCC! Has the RCC ever taken responsibility for that truth-forsaken error? Yes! As the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation approaches Pope Francis said the following...

"As the bishop of Rome and pastor of the Catholic Church, I would like to invoke mercy and forgiveness for the non-evangelical behavior of Catholics toward Christians of other churches. At the same time, I invite all Catholic brothers and sisters to forgive if today, or in the past, they have suffered offense by other Christians."​

Notice the Pope himself acknowledged the existence of other churches, other ecclesia. There exist others who have been called out by God in service to Christ.


That is RCC history, the facts of which cannot be changed. The RCC reformed its own doctrines. That should not have been necessary and would never have occurred if what you argue did not apply. The truth cannot be reformed, but bad thinking, bad doctrine, and bad practice can be reformed wherever it departs from the truth of God. Jesus never once sold forgiveness for sin.

He paid for it!​

That is the truth.

Heresy hunters and inquisitions
Just that inquiry to see if they were teaching error!

Heresy is treason against God and treason is punishable by death but not by the church but by the state who does not carry a sword for no reason scripture says!

Rom 13:1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

 

[donadams]

Which is exactly what the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church did. They lied, added to scripture, whored around, and murdered anyone they didn't like. They literally created a sect specifically for hunting down dissent to be tortured and killed.

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Guilty on all counts.

That is correct. The idolatrous, depraved history of the RCC cannot be changed. Their practices and the perverse doctrines they invented (like selling forgiveness for sins) can and should be reformed.

"Many people assume that the Catholic Church stopped granting indulgences after Luther’s famous rejection of them. Indeed, nearly 50 years later, Pope Pius V put a stop to their sale. However, Pius V also affirmed the validity of indulgences themselves so long as no money was exchanged. By 1563, he had endorsed a comprehensive doctrine on indulgences that emerged from a series of meetings with high-ranking clergy, called the Council of Trent. This comprehensive doctrine, revised in 1967 by Pope Paul VI, remains one of the church’s teachings to this day." (from The Conversation website)​

Here's what Catholicdotcom states on the matter of indulgences.

"That’s like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.​

In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: “Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.” The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses.... In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina..."​

Yet when the Roman Catholic priest, Martin Luther, in the Church's good standing wrote about it he was attacked and ex communicated. He spoke the truth about the truth for the truth. Had the RCC handled the matter as they should have there wouldn't be a single Protestant today. We'd all still be RCC! Has the RCC ever taken responsibility for that truth-forsaken error? Yes! As the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation approaches Pope Francis said the following...

"As the bishop of Rome and pastor of the Catholic Church, I would like to invoke mercy and forgiveness for the non-evangelical behavior of Catholics toward Christians of other churches. At the same time, I invite all Catholic brothers and sisters to forgive if today, or in the past, they have suffered offense by other Christians."​

Notice the Pope himself acknowledged the existence of other churches, other ecclesia. There exist others who have been called out by God in service to Christ.


That is RCC history, the facts of which cannot be changed. The RCC reformed its own doctrines. That should not have been necessary and would never have occurred if what you argue did not apply. The truth cannot be reformed, but bad thinking, bad doctrine, and bad practice can be reformed wherever it departs from the truth of God. Jesus never once sold forgiveness for sin.

He paid for it!​

That is the truth.

You want replies and not be ignored?

Make one statement per post instead of a rant!

 

[donadams]

Do you know how and what reformed means? It does not seem like you do.

So I will not misunderstand you,....l. would you explain your understanding of reformed as far as a reformed Christian or church is concerned?

Thanks Don.

Ok go ahead explain it!

 

[donadams]

I provided links to everything. The questions shows you are being obtuse.

The two are not mutually exclusive. False dichotomy.

That is correct. He did not establish the Church to teach men Roman Catholicism.

Yes, and as Pope Francis stated, there are churches other than the RCC.

Yep. The problem is the history of the RCC is filled with errors NOT occurring by the Holy Spirit and directly contradicted by both the written word and the precedents it reports. Hence the Reformation. You do not get to judge others without first cleaning up your own house and that begins with an honest and forthcoming acknowledgment of RCC error. You've been in the forum for eight months now and discussed these matters with multiple posters and not once been honest and forthcoming about the RCC's mixed history with God's truth.

Sola scripture does not mean scripture is the "ONLY" authority. I have discussed this with you multiple times. The first time your lack of knowledge might have been a simple mistake but because I and others have told you what sola scriptura teaches and its doctrinally stated limits we know you know. When you post falsehood you know to be false that is called lying. Stop lying.

Sola scriptura applies solely to the authority of scripture and its sufficiency for understanding salvation and the Christian life. An atheist stranded on a deserted island could find salvation if a Bible washed up on the shore and s/he read it. S/he does not need the RCC.

ROTFLMBO!!!

YOU JUST APPEALED TO SCRIPTURE TO PROVE YOU POST AUTHORITATIVE!!!

When people practice things they report not to value that is called hypocrisy. Stop being hypocritical.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Your argument leaves the deserted island individual incapable of salvation. That is a bad doctrine.

None of which precludes scripture from being authoritative and sufficient. Nice red herring.

Sure they did. They did not use that label but everyone, including the RCC, believed the Bible authoritative and sufficient. The Church is built on the word!





So lets' review. I've received two posts in this thread (a multitude of them in other threads) and in those two posts the matter of Catholic error, Catholic abuse of scripture, Catholic leaders' sinfulness, Catholic doctrinal and practical malfeasance and the need for reform and the history of reforms the RCC made because the early Reformers were correct has been ignored and instead the posts contain multiple red herrings, multiple false dichotomies, multiple factual falsehoods, along with a pair of false equivalence, a straw man, and one outright lie.

The Roman Catholic Church would not approve if they'd read those posts. I suspect they'd ask you to stop because you're not helping them and the fallacious content is foolish, fruitless, wholly unscriptural, and avoidant. You are not a very good apologist for the RCC and, as a consequence you are wasting everyone's time because one of the reasons the forum exists is so that its members can improve and refine their arguments.





The history of the Roman Catholic Church is filled with ungodly and unscriptural practices and that history cannot be changed. That history includes the selling of indulgences, which is the impetus for the Protestant Reformation. That too is a fact of history that cannot be changed. So too is the persecutorial, prosecutorial, torturous and murderous history of the RCC's handling of what is more often than not sound, just, valid, and scriptural inquiry and calls for reform. Those are facts that cannot be changed. The Roman Catholic Church did eventually respond to the internal and external calls for reform by making changes within. That is a fact of history. It cannot be changed. The Pope himself apologized for the Roman Catholic Church's abuse of those in other Churches. That is a fact of history. It cannot be changed.

No, you cannot.

The Roman Catholic Church cannot change its history. Neither can you change the last eight month's history of lying. Stop lying. Acknowledge the RCC's errors.

I see you ignored my one thing at a time statement, one per post otherwise it too much

Barney hated it when Andy got obtuse on tags!