Did the reformers claim to be inspired?

[Reformed]

Are you saying that the New Testament contains false teaching? If I read you correctly then how can the New Testament be the inspired word of God and yet contain false teaching???

(thank you in advance for your patience if I read you wrongly and misunderstood what you are saying - as I said, I’m new to these type of discussions)

No… we are talking about the subject of false teaching…it’s a major theme throughout the entire bible.

Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

http://www.americanbeautybordercoll...pond/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg.w180h213.jpg

In the theme of this thread, is this Martin Luther or Pope Leo X?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Are you saying that the New Testament contains false teaching? If I read you correctly then how can the New Testament be the inspired word of God and yet contain false teaching???

(thank you in advance for your patience if I read you wrongly and misunderstood what you are saying - as I said, I’m new to these type of discussions)

I think “Reformed” was pointing to the New Testament’s FOCUS on false teaching rather than claiming that the New Testament CONATINS false teaching.

Either way, the focus on false teaching doesn’t spell out the source of false teaching being the Catholic Church. One can, and has, used these verses to condemn the Reformation.

It’s all a matter of POV.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

No… we are talking about the subject of false teaching…it’s a major theme throughout the entire bible.

Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

http://www.americanbeautybordercoll...pond/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg.w180h213.jpg

In the theme of this thread, is this Martin Luther or Pope Leo X?

Well my subjective opinion would be that it would first be Martin Luther (or Zwingli or Calvin) before it would be any of the Popes.

The former three individuals have given rise to some 30,000 different un-unified sects in Christendom while the Popes have preserved one church.

Remember, those wolves in sheep’s clothing were to deceive many and namely by confusion.

 

[Erich]

Maybe you are an elect of God without even knowing it. God has a remnant all throughout history. Therefore, the Holy Spirit had His remnant throughout all of the New Testament history as well. Did the remnant of God stay within the 16th Century Roman Catholic Church, or did God call out His remnant from the 16th Century Roman Catholic Church?

Matthew 5:14-15 tells us, “You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.”

John 17:21 tells us, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us.”

For there to be a remnant of God called out from the 16th Century Catholic Church, there would have to be a way for that remnant to be able to identify itself, make itself known, be that city on a hill, be that candle on a candlestick… and of course that remnant would have to “all be one” just as Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are one. There is more disunity than unity in the denominations that trace themselves – directly or indirectly – to the 16th century; in fact, there isn’t any unity in what the “essentials” of the faith even are.

 

[BlestOne]

Well you know, God is Triune.

Ahhhhh… am I detecting a sense of humor???

 

[Reformed]

Ahhhhh… am I detecting a sense of humor???

We have to laugh and lighten up if we discuss and debate with each other. We all know in part. I really believe there will just be Christians in Heaven.

They may have been part of a Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox communites. Or they might not have even attended a church. Christ saves sinners in-spite of our religious Christian communities.

 

[cfrancis]

I was just wondering if any of the protestant reformers or any of those that broke away from the Catholic Church, claimed to be inspired by The Holy Spirit when they made their changes and challenges to the Catholic Church’s teachings?

Bruxilda

I don’t know if they made the claim, but one can make the argument they were received as infallible. Why else would so many accept this monk’s interpretation of Scripture?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/index_files/luther.jpg

It appears dissenters from Luther and Calvin, etc… were perceived as dissenting from Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

October 31 celebrates the day that the Reformation in Europe began, with Martin Luther posting his 95 theses onto the church door. Perhaps Luther found it fitting to use an ancient Celtic (pagan) holiday for this act.

All Hallows’ Eve, but more importantly The eve of All Saints Day. Knowing well, as was the practice of the time, that many would attend Mass the following morning, and those that could would read his (what we might call today) talking points.

Jon

 

[Ag_not]

I don’t know if they made the claim, but one can make the argument they were received as infallible. Why else would so many accept this monk’s interpretation of Scripture?

It appears dissenters from Luther and Calvin, etc… were perceived as dissenting from Scripture.

So if that’s the case then if Luther and Calvin were claiming it’s my way or the highway (to put it simply ) then they were behaving no more differently than the pope at the time

 

[cfrancis]

So if that’s the case then if Luther and Calvin were claiming it’s my way or the highway (to put it simply ) then they were behaving no more differently than the pope at the time

That’s one way to look at it, I suppose. Except the popes had been saying it’s Christ’s way or the highway for 1500 years.
No, I was thinking more along these lines: in the face of 1500 years of Christianity, someone decides, “ya know, I think they’ve been wrong all along…”; it then appears folks took his word for it.

 

[JonNC]

That’s one way to look at it, I suppose. Except the popes had been saying it’s Christ’s way or the highway for 1500 years.
No, I was thinking more along these lines: in the face of 1500 years of Christianity, someone decides, “ya know, I think they’ve been wrong all along…”; it then appears folks took his word for it.

I don’t think Luther’s complaints were about the 1500 years of the church that preceded him, more like the recent times where the Church had moved away, or maybe more kindly, allowed some who spoke for the church to move away from what the early church taught.

Jon

 

[Reformed]

I don’t think Luther’s complaints were about the 1500 years of the church that preceded him, more like the recent times where the Church had moved away, or maybe more kindly, allowed some who spoke for the church to move away from what the early church taught.

Jon

Wow, that is really good. That’s my answer too. At what point did the Catholic Church drift to another gospel?

 

[davidv]

Wow, that is really good. That’s my answer too. At what point did the Catholic Church drift to another gospel?

It never did.

 

[JonNC]

Wow, that is really good. That’s my answer too. At what point did the Catholic Church drift to another gospel?

I wouldn’t go that far. Certainly there were errors.
Jon

 

[With_Questions]

I don’t know if they made the claim, but one can make the argument they were received as infallible. Why else would so many accept this monk’s interpretation of Scripture?

Just one point here.

There is a big difference between believing you are correct and believing you are incapable of being incorrect (infallible).

For example you might take a test and be 100% certain that you are correct. That does not mean that you believe you are incapable of making an error whenever you take an examination in a given subject.

Or I might believe my professor to be speaking correctly when he teaches in class. I hope as an authority he knows what he is talking about. That does not mean that I believe my professor is incapable of being incorrect.

It is human nature, probably partly out of pride, to believe ones self to be correct. It is not human nature to believe ones self to be incapable of being incorrect.

I think this distinction applies to the reformers and their followers. The correct meaning of infallible tends to get muddled in these types of conversations.

 

[Ag_not]

I don’t think Luther’s complaints were about the 1500 years of the church that preceded him, more like the recent times where the Church had moved away, or maybe more kindly, allowed some who spoke for the church** to move away from what the early church taught.**Jon

Ok, excluding indulgences and all that stuff because I dont have the first clue about any of that yet, what was it that the catholic church was teaching at the time, that was contrary to the early church.
Didn’t the early church believe in apolstolic succession, oral confession, Christ present in the Eucharist, all the stuff that the reformers seem to have dumped overboard???

 

[Ag_not]

Just one point here.

There is a big difference between believing you are correct and believing you are incapable of being incorrect (infallible).

For example you might take a test and be 100% certain that you are correct. That does not mean that you believe you are incapable of making an error whenever you take an examination in a given subject.

Or I might believe my professor to be speaking correctly when he teaches in class. I hope as an authority he knows what he is talking about. That does not mean that I believe my professor is incapable of being incorrect.

It is human nature, probably partly out of pride, to believe ones self to be correct. It is not human nature to believe ones self to be incapable of being incorrect.

I think this distinction applies to the reformers and their followers. The correct meaning of infallible tends to get muddled in these types of conversations.

I understand the correct meaning of infallible to be that if the pope says two plus two is twelve he is clearly wrong and noone in the church is expected to ot supposed to agree with him.
But if the pope speaks on matters of FAITH - saying Christ is truely present in the Eucharist, as this is backed up by scripture and Sacred Tradition going back to the time of Peter and Paul, then every catholic is expected to accept this as true and binding. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[jim1130]

Wow, that is really good. That’s my answer too. At what point did the Catholic Church drift to another gospel?

There was no “drifting.” Luther’s 95 theses had more to do on the abuse of some priests with indulgences and their misrepresentation of an indulgence; that allegedly people could “buy” their way out of Purgatory and into Heaven through indulgences.

By the way: “Luther criticized many forms of veneration to Mary, but held fast to the traditional belief in Mary’s Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, her Immaculate Conception, and her intercession. Zwingli held to the veneration of Mary, but rejected the practice of making petition to her; Calvin rejected veneration paid to Mary as adoration of idols.” (“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, p. 216).

So you have 3 Reformers with 3 different opinions? Who is right?

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

Catechism of the Catholic Church (regarding indulgences)

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

What is an indulgence?

“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”

“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.” The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.

1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

1498 Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory.

 

[JonNC]

Ok, excluding indulgences and all that stuff because I dont have the first clue about any of that yet, what was it that the catholic church was teaching at the time, that was contrary to the early church.
Didn’t the early church believe in apolstolic succession, oral confession, Christ present in the Eucharist, all the stuff that the reformers seem to have dumped overboard???

Lutherans continue with confession, including private confession (though there are differences in what we teach about it). We also believe in the real presence, though not ascribing to Transubstantiation. Apostolic Succession is maintained by some Lutherans (parts of Europe), but we consider that only one valid way of ordination.

What we “dumped overboard” was the Catholic teaching regarding justification (there has beensome positive movement between us in this area) , the primacy of the Pope, and some of the teachings of the sacrifice of the Mass. Luther opposed private masses, and while he maintained a strong mariology, he did come to oppose intercession of the BVM and saints.

Jon

 

[Ag_not]

Lutherans continue with confession, including private confession (though there are differences in what we teach about it). We also believe in the real presence, though not ascribing to Transubstantiation. Apostolic Succession is maintained by some Lutherans (parts of Europe), but we consider that only one valid way of ordination.

What we “dumped overboard” was the Catholic teaching regarding justification (there has beensome positive movement between us in this area) , the primacy of the Pope, and some of the teachings of the sacrifice of the Mass. Luther opposed private masses, and while he maintained a strong mariology, **he did come to oppose **intercession of the BVM and saints.

Jon

Thank you Jon. One more question if I can - when you say Luther ‘‘came’’ to oppose, does this mean when he started his break away from the church he **did **believe in praying to Mary to interceed for him and others, but later changed his mind on this issue. If that’s the case, what caused him to change his mind on this issue?