Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[guanophore]

… it just amazes me how people go off, on cue, about Luther … and at the same time figure out a way to dismiss Leo X & Co … the reason for the outrage… Leo and his entourage were like Nero’s court.

Indeed they were, and gave that loose canon plenty of fodder. Leo’s lack of personal morals, however, did not induce him (thankfully) to attempt to rewrite the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

… The RCC’s top leaders were as corrupt as corruption can be when Martin Luther had the temerity to say something about it… and people are still ticked of at him.

It is the fruit of his labor that we loudly mourn. It was not being “ticked off” (as is clear to anyone who reads the scoldings of orthodox reformers) with his temerity to speak up about corruption, as we are all called to do the same. Rather, it was the splitting of the Church caused by the introduction of heresies that still continues to splinter today. God’s way of reform brings unity, not division.

He was a Holy Prophet that had a very tough job…

I am curious on what basis you consider this man a “holy prophet”? I don’t see how anyone can read his writings against Jews, peasants, and papists and see a holy soul producing them. Do they really sound to you like Christ speaking?

I do agree, anyone speaking out about corruption in that day, as well as in this, has a very tough job.

and forced the RCC to stop standing by while the Medicis and Leo X led the church into an abyss.

No one should stand by and allow corruption to prevail. But God is able to purify His Own Church without the insertion of human hubris. Changing the doctrine of Christ is not the answer. It is the people that need Reform, not the pure and holy bride of Christ.

Martin Luther was the wake up call that saved what was left of the RCC.

Indeed heresy is a wake up call to the Church, and always has been. As the Apostle has written, divisions exist to make the authentic more visible.

 

[guanophore]

of this proves that Luther hated corruption … and that your response fits the pattern I describe …

While I agree with you that Luther hated corruption, I think his regrets express more than this. He had regrets about how he chose to respond to corruption, both in himself, and in his world. His methods fomented rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ, and splintered the Church, causing more division and disobedience.

We are all called upon to hate corruption, but equally, to work toward the unity of the Church. Unity is not accomplished by departing from the Apostolic faith, and replacing it with our own ideas of what works better.

If the RCC, during that era, had done what Christ commissioned … Luther would have had no reason to call attention to the people and reasons that people still refuse to acknowledge.

I agree with this with one correction. The Holy Bride of Christ is infallible and pure, because He is her Head, and the HS is her Soul. For that reason I would revise your observation to say that, if those shepherds of God’s flock had been holy and obedient, the corruption would not have been running rampant, placing so many souls in danger of falling into sin. When the shepherds are stricken, the sheep are scattered. May God have mercy upon their souls.

The fact that Luther had self doubt only proved his humanity. Many of those mentioned in the hall of faith in the book of Romans … were strongly less than perfect … but they got the job done.

Luther was not having self doubt. He was observing the fruit of his labors, and regretting that his goals were not accomplished through them. He saw that disobedience and people becoming their own authorities only leads to more division.

Isaiah spoke, with deep frustration, against corruption for an entire generation … and God’s chosen … mocked him mercilessly and things only grew worse. It did not in any way diminish the messenger.

This should prove to you that it was not the corruption present that forced Luther to act the way he did. Isaiah did not try to alter the Word of God, or encourage people to rebel against the authorities appointed over the Nation by God. Error only begats more error.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1voice,

You know, your are mostly correct! A lot of folks do jump on Luther - but, mostly not for the reasons you give - and probably even more ignore “Leo X & Co” (I am guessing that this includes Alexander VI and Julius II?) but this does not excuse their public scandals.

Luther stood up at a time when apparently many others didn’t. Simony is evil and was exposed. But here is where we see the difference between Catherine of Siena who exposed genuine evil and corruption in the Church Christ founded on Peter and Martin Luther. The former is a canonized saint for the work she did within the system. The latter is condemned for his various heresies (faith alone, scripture alone, removing books from the Canon, etc). What truly makes Luther a tragic human being was that at some point pride overcame his desire to bring about reform - and he went about with efforts to destroy the Church of Christ.

You know, shortly after Christ identified Peter as the Rock on which Christ would build His Church and gave Peter the Keys - we see Peter shooting his mouth off and being sternly rebuked by Christ. In fact, Christ called Peter, “Satan”! Chist was not only fully aware of Peter’s weaknesses - but also the weaknesses of every man that would succeed him! Yet, Christ took this bold step because He wanted all to know that it was not Peter or any of his successors that was keeping the Church intact - but, the Power of the Holy Spirit.

God bless

… it just amazes me how people go off, on cue, about Luther … and at the same time figure out a way to dismiss Leo X & Co … the reason for the outrage… Leo and his entourage were like Nero’s court.

… The RCC’s top leaders were as corrupt as corruption can be when Martin Luther had the temerity to say something about it… and people are still ticked of at him. He was a Holy Prophet that had a very tough job… and forced the RCC to stop standing by while the Medicis and Leo X led the church into an abyss.

Martin Luther was the wake up call that saved what was left of the RCC.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

hey I like you signature

Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you
All things are passing, God alone never changes
Patient endurance attains all things,
Whoever has God wants for nothing,
God Alone Suffices -St Teresa of Avila

 

[1voice]

You remind me of the army officer during the Vietnam war who said “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

But God’s Providence saw to it that these souls lost from the Church were almost immediately replaced manifold by the conversion of the New World.

we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to 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 2: 15-16). And to the Christians of Rome he (Paul) reasserts that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”

… our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.

… Pope Benedict XVI​

Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian

… Pope Benedict XVI

---

We hold, and unquestionably it is true, that it is faith which justifies and cleanses. Rom 1.17; 10.10; Acts 15.9. But if it justifies and purifies, love must be present. The Spirit cannot but impart love together with faith. In fact, where true faith is, the Holy Spirit dwells; and where the Holy Spirit is, there must be love and every excellence. How is it, then, Paul speaks as if faith without love were possible? We reply, this one text cannot be understood as subverting and militating against all those texts which ascribe justification to faith alone. Even the sophists have not attributed justification to love, nor is this possible, for love is an effect, or fruit, of the Spirit, who is received through faith.

… Martin Luther

 

[CopticChristian]

we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to 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 2: 15-16). And to the Christians of Rome he (Paul) reasserts that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”

… our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.

… Pope Benedict XVI​

Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian

… Pope Benedict XVI

---

We hold, and unquestionably it is true, that it is faith which justifies and cleanses. Rom 1.17; 10.10; Acts 15.9. But if it justifies and purifies, love must be present. The Spirit cannot but impart love together with faith. In fact, where true faith is, the Holy Spirit dwells; and where the Holy Spirit is, there must be love and every excellence. How is it, then, Paul speaks as if faith without love were possible? We reply, this one text cannot be understood as subverting and militating against all those texts which ascribe justification to faith alone. Even the sophists have not attributed justification to love, nor is this possible, for love is an effect, or fruit, of the Spirit, who is received through faith.

… Martin Luther

This is one of the most thoughtful posts I have seen from you. I usually see you throwing bible verses around and I have a hard time following your point. What is your understanding of works of the law?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1voice,

Would you kindly provide the references for those quotes from Pope Benedict?

Thank you

God bless

we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to 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 2: 15-16). And to the Christians of Rome he (Paul) reasserts that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”

… our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.

… Pope Benedict XVI​

Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian

… Pope Benedict XVI

---

We hold, and unquestionably it is true, that it is faith which justifies and cleanses. Rom 1.17; 10.10; Acts 15.9. But if it justifies and purifies, love must be present. The Spirit cannot but impart love together with faith. In fact, where true faith is, the Holy Spirit dwells; and where the Holy Spirit is, there must be love and every excellence. How is it, then, Paul speaks as if faith without love were possible? We reply, this one text cannot be understood as subverting and militating against all those texts which ascribe justification to faith alone. Even the sophists have not attributed justification to love, nor is this possible, for love is an effect, or fruit, of the Spirit, who is received through faith.

… Martin Luther

 

[jecs2000]

No. It was an attempt to stop the abuse of the clergy, but in doing so eliminated some of the essential elements which make the faith what it is. For instance, removing works means that one has to do nothing other than pray in order to get to heaven. The Catholic faith is about DOING. The reason the church is viewed as the body of Christ is because the body does the work. In doing God’s work as the body of Christ we make heaven on earth.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

His will is done by the body of believers. We as Catholics are called to do the work.

The Protestant Reformation is not the tragedy. The tragedy is the hell wreaked by those abusers within the clergy that made the reformation necessary. They sinned mortally in that they destroyed unity of a people. They destroyed the body of Christ by splitting the congregation. Now, we have many protestant believers (not all) who would be a mighty army doing the work of Christ, instead they are praying for wealth and power measuring God by what they receive instead of what they themselves do for others. The reformation is a tragedy. But pushing persons away from God through abuse of power in God’s name is by far the greatest tragedy. We as Catholics have an obligation to get them back and never let such abuse happen again. This is not our church and it is definately not owned by the clergy. This is Christ’s church. And it belongs to all of humanity! The protestant reformation created lost sheep and they must be welcomed home.

 

[1voice]

Hi, 1voice,

Would you kindly provide the references for those quotes from Pope Benedict?

Thank you

God bless

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

---

The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Ignatius Press)

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88:

“The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

 

[Radical]

Do you think the Protestant Reformation did anything good?

how have you defined “good”? I expect, if you asked, “Do you think that the American Civil War did anything good?” …that you would get rather different answers from abolitionists vs. slave holders. Likewise, I expect that the answer to your question depends entirely on one’s perspective.

I note that you are Catholic and I suspect that you think that whatever serves God’s purposes is “good” and I would agree. I also suspect, however, that you think that the purposes of the Catholic Church are coextensive with God’s ecclesiastical purposes (or nearly so)…and I would disagree. I would disagree sufficiently to allow me to think that the Protestant Reformation achieved a lot of good.

I personally thing it was one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the human race, but could’ve been avoided. And if it were avoided, things would be a lot better off today.

Let me ask you about two non-Catholic Christians that are out there somewhere. The first is named Martha. She was raised in the CC and was wonderously cathechized, nevertheless Catholic theology and practice never resonated with her. Martha then tried a Quaker Church and has been “on fire” for Christ ever since. The second is named Bob. Bob was raised agnostic and has studied theology and church history extensively. He has been exposed to various theories regarding the origin and development of Christianity including the Catholic Church’s claims that it is the one true Chruch and that it has enjoyed the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit for 2000 years. Bob has come to the conclusion that the CC’s claim is simply false, but that hasn’t caused him to reject Christianity. Instead, he has found a spiritual home in his Reformed Church. Now there are about 800,000,000 non-Catholic Christians out there in the world and so I am pretty sure that a good number of Marthas and Bobs exist. So what do you think, did the Protestant Reformation do anything good for the Marthas and/or the Bobs of this world?

 

[joe370]

Radical, the foundation of protestantism is sola scriptura, which puts the final authority/interpretation of scripture into the hands of each and every sola scriptura proponent, and what scripture says to the Bob’s of the world, doesn’t always say the same thing to the Martha’s of the world, (sometimes, quite the opposite) - and yet, in both cases the Bob’s and Martha’s of the world both claim to possess truth regarding the same teaching of Jesus, which of course is impossible. Are you of the opinion that this was what Jesus intended? Just curious…

Let me ask you about two non-Catholic Christians that are out there somewhere. The first is named Martha. She was raised in the CC and was wonderously cathechized, nevertheless Catholic theology and practice never resonated with her. Martha then tried a Quaker Church and has been “on fire” for Christ ever since. The second is named Bob. Bob was raised agnostic and has studied theology and church history extensively. He has been exposed to various theories regarding the origin and development of Christianity including the Catholic Church’s claims that it is the one true Chruch and that it has enjoyed the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit for 2000 years. Bob has come to the conclusion that the CC’s claim is simply false, but that hasn’t caused him to reject Christianity. Instead, he has found a spiritual home in his Reformed Church. Now there are about 800,000,000 non-Catholic Christians out there in the world and so I am pretty sure that a good number of Marthas and Bobs exist. So what do you think, did the Protestant Reformation do anything good for the Marthas and/or the Bobs of this world?

 

[joe370]

QUOTE=1voice;8307812]All of this proves that Luther hated corruption … and that your response fits the pattern I describe …
If the RCC, during that era, had done what Christ commissioned … Luther would have had no reason to call attention to the people and reasons that people still refuse to acknowledge.

Like what? Did Martin Luther, during that era, always do what Christ commissioned? Was Luther, outside the CC, even commissioned by Christ - if so, when and where?

 

[Radical]

Radical, the foundation of protestantism is sola scriptura, which puts the final authority/interpretation of scripture into the hands of each and every sola scriptura proponent, and what scripture says to the Bob’s of the world, doesn’t always say the same thing to the Martha’s of the world, (sometimes, quite the opposite) - and yet, in both cases the Bob’s and Martha’s of the world both claim to possess truth regarding the same teaching of Jesus, which of course is impossible. Are you of the opinion that this was what Jesus intended? Just curious…

What do you mean by “intended”? Do you mean that Christ would have known in advance that a) fallible men would quickly corrupt his teachings with their traditions leaving the scriptures as the only reliable source of his revelations and that b) over centuries corruption would be piled upon corruption and that c) efforts to eliminate all the corruption would be far from perfect and would result in many divisions (as opposed to unity under corruption)? …and that despite that foreknowledge Jesus went ahead and did what he did? Is that what you mean by “intended”?..or are you talking about the fact that all three are unfortunate and would not have been part of Christ’s desire?

…in any event, you never said whether you thought the PR was good for the Bobs and Marthas.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1voice,

Thank you for the link.

God bless

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

---

The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Ignatius Press)

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88:

“The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

 

[joe370]

What do you mean by “intended”? Do you mean that Christ would have known in advance that a) fallible men would quickly corrupt his teachings with their traditions leaving the scriptures as the only reliable source of his revelations and that b) over centuries corruption would be piled upon corruption and that c) efforts to eliminate all the corruption would be far from perfect and would result in many divisions (as opposed to unity under corruption)? …and that despite that foreknowledge Jesus went ahead and did what he did? Is that what you mean by “intended”?..or are you talking about the fact that all three are unfortunate and would not have been part of Christ’s desire?

…in any event, you never said whether you thought the PR was good for the Bobs and Marthas.

No. I believe that an all omnipotent God such as Jesus could and did prevent fallible men from corrupting his teachings…

Below is an example of how sola scriptura works; it puts the final authority/interpretation of scripture into the hands of each and every sola scriptura proponent.

What scripture says to the Bob’s of the world, doesn’t always say the same thing to the Martha’s of the world, (sometimes, quite the opposite) - and yet, in both cases the Bob’s and Martha’s of the world both claim to possess truth regarding the same teaching of Jesus, which of course is impossible.

Are you of the opinion that sola scriptura, (which puts the final authority/interpretation of scripture into the hands of each and every sola scriptura proponent) - was Jesus’ plan for Christianity?

 

[Nicea325]

What do you mean by “intended”? Do you mean that Christ would have known in advance that a) fallible men would quickly corrupt his teachings with their traditions leaving the scriptures as the only reliable source of his revelations and that b) over centuries corruption would be piled upon corruption and that c) efforts to eliminate all the corruption would be far from perfect and would result in many divisions (as opposed to unity under corruption)? …and that despite that foreknowledge Jesus went ahead and did what he did? Is that what you mean by “intended”?..or are you talking about the fact that all three are unfortunate and would not have been part of Christ’s desire?

…in any event, you never said whether you thought the PR was good for the Bobs and Marthas.

a) fallible men would quickly corrupt his teachings with their traditions leaving the scriptures as the only reliable source of his revelations

But only to be more corrupted by more fallible men (I am sure you do not want me to mention names?) with their novel teachings and traditions? Hence,mis-interpret the only “reliable” source according to you?

BTW: I thought Scripture makes it very clear Jesus Church is infallible and not ONLY a book called the Bible?

 

[Radical]

Are you of the opinion that sola scriptura, (which puts the final authority/interpretation of scripture into the hands of each and every sola scriptura proponent) - was Jesus’ plan for Christianity?

You should start a different thread if you want to pursue this

 

[joe370]

…in any event, you never said whether you thought the PR was good for the Bobs and Marthas.

Well, I can’t speak for the Bob’s and Martha’s out there, but the PR and its concomitant break down of Jesus’ one church, was no good for me as a former protestant. I simply didn’t feel that I was given the necessary charism (when division and disunity arise due to conflicting interpretations of scripture) - to definitively interpret scripture.

 

[joe370]

You should start a different thread if you want to pursue this

I might; what is your answer?

 

[CopticChristian]

how have you defined “good”? I expect, if you asked, “Do you think that the American Civil War did anything good?” …that you would get rather different answers from abolitionists vs. slave holders. Likewise, I expect that the answer to your question depends entirely on one’s perspective.

I note that you are Catholic and I suspect that you think that whatever serves God’s purposes is “good” and I would agree. I also suspect, however, that you think that the purposes of the Catholic Church are coextensive with God’s ecclesiastical purposes (or nearly so)…and I would disagree. I would disagree sufficiently to allow me to think that the Protestant Reformation achieved a lot of good.

Let me ask you about two non-Catholic Christians that are out there somewhere. The first is named Martha. She was raised in the CC and was wonderously cathechized, nevertheless Catholic theology and practice never resonated with her. Martha then tried a Quaker Church and has been “on fire” for Christ ever since. The second is named Bob. Bob was raised agnostic and has studied theology and church history extensively. He has been exposed to various theories regarding the origin and development of Christianity including the Catholic Church’s claims that it is the one true Chruch and that it has enjoyed the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit for 2000 years. Bob has come to the conclusion that the CC’s claim is simply false, but that hasn’t caused him to reject Christianity. Instead, he has found a spiritual home in his Reformed Church. Now there are about 800,000,000 non-Catholic Christians out there in the world and so I am pretty sure that a good number of Marthas and Bobs exist. So what do you think, did the Protestant Reformation do anything good for the Marthas and/or the Bobs of this world?

Martha did not avow that the Scriptures are inspired or necessary and later became pregnant. Martha aborted because she had no knowledge that this was wrong. Martha died in the abortion.

Bob has found a spiritual home in the Reformed Church. He reallized that since there was no infallible authority he was the authority with scripture. Bob formed the Branch Bob Originals and took several of the members of the Church with him. They decided that it was proper to blow up abortion clinics and now sit in jail having murdered several health workers.

Did it do anything good for Bob or Martha? Depends on the writer.