Do You Think The Reformation Was Necessary?

[Tantum_ergo]

Scripture disproving sola Scriptura?

It’s a hermanutical principle, which simply posits scripture is our only infallible guide, not our only guide… So, to me the reformation had a necessary aspect in ensuring the church maintained this principle, so as to avoid serious diversions from apostolic teaching.

Lincs

I believe Scripture is inerrant, but it is not infallible.

Tell me, how do you know what is Scripture?

And how do you explain, for example, that in John 6, Christ says we must eat His Body and drink His Blood, and that for 1500 years Catholic (and Orthodox) understood (and still understand) this to mean that the Eucharist is the LITERAL Body and Blood (Lutherans BTW believe this as well). . .yet from AD 1550 approximately on, nonCatholic Christians reading the very same Scripture say that Christ was only speaking FIGURATIVELY?

If you read the actual words printed on the page, the Catholic (and Orthodox and Lutheran) positions seem absolutely and undeniably correct --Christ DOES indeed say that His Flesh is to be eaten (in fact the original language used the verb 'to gnaw"). And the Jews ‘walk away’ because this is ‘too hard’. And He NEVER corrects the misunderstanding “Guys, I’m only speaking figuratively here!”. . .

SO – for a nonCatholic Christian to say that Christ spoke figuratively here means that they are interpreting the words printed to say something DIFFERENT from what the words themselves say.

SCRIPTURE does not say that Christ speaks ‘figuratively’ here.

SO --WHO is the authority who has given the interpretation of the words? Not Scripture, but the man (the protestant scholar, teacher, reader) who says, “Well, Christ must be speaking figuratively here”.

WHY does the average nonCatholic NOT believe the words must be 'literal"?

Because if they WERE literal, then the world would need priests. Not just anybody could offer this transsubstantiative sacrifice.

The reason for the insistence on ‘figurative’ speech in John 6 has to do largely with ANTICLERICALISM --a man-made doctrine.

 

[Augustus24]

Why or Why not?

Yes it was necessary, unfortunately many of the reformers became worse then the corrupt institution they were trying to reform.

 

[po18guy]

“A” reformation, yes. “The” reformation? Absolutely not. Despite whatever good intent the reformation had, its fruits are division in the Body of Christ, while the body of evil is united.

 

[Lincoln7]

Tantum ergo,

I believe Scripture is inerrant, but it is not infallible.

Tell me, how do you know what is Scripture?

And how do you explain, for example, that in John 6, Christ says we must eat His Body and drink His Blood, and that for 1500 years Catholic (and Orthodox) understood (and still understand) this to mean that the Eucharist is the LITERAL Body and Blood (Lutherans BTW believe this as well). . .yet from AD 1550 approximately on, nonCatholic Christians reading the very same Scripture say that Christ was only speaking FIGURATIVELY?

The same way the early church did; a recognition and acceptance of the books handed down to them from the apostles, their intrinsic self authenticating nature and apostolic testimony. Sola Scriptura does not deny any place for the church in canonical recognition, only its caricature. The obvious question to ask back is ‘how do you know which church is the infallible one?’ The answer to which is exactly the same; one uses their own private discernment of evidence and reaches a conclusion.

Such a claim of Eucharistic interpretation simply doesn’t fit with the facts, some fathers certainly did, others did not; “The Alexandrians are here, as usual, decidedly spiritualistic. Clement twice expressly calls the wine a symbol or an allegory of the blood of Christ, and says, that the communicant receives not the physical, but the spiritual blood, the life, of Christ; as, indeed, the blood is the life of the body. Origen distinguishes still more definitely the earthly elements from the heavenly bread of life, and makes it the whole design of the supper to feed the soul with the divine word.” - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm - see Schaff here.

If you read the actual words printed on the page, the Catholic (and Orthodox and Lutheran) positions seem absolutely and undeniably correct --Christ DOES indeed say that His Flesh is to be eaten (in fact the original language used the verb 'to gnaw"). And the Jews ‘walk away’ because this is ‘too hard’. And He NEVER corrects the misunderstanding “Guys, I’m only speaking figuratively here!”. . .

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to conclude the eating and drinking here are synonymous with ‘believing’, as is seen frequently in Johns Gospel, and as is seen in vs 35. They walk away as they have no faith in Christ, indeed are repulsed by him.

SO --WHO is the authority who has given the interpretation of the words? Not Scripture, but the man (the protestant scholar, teacher, reader) who says, “Well, Christ must be speaking figuratively here”.

No one is ‘unbiased’, no. But my case is that certain protestbt scholars regard scripture as their ultimate infallible guide, not their only guide, it does not exclude church, just an infallible church.

Because if they WERE literal, then the world would need priests. Not just anybody could offer this transsubstantiative sacrifice.

We have a great high priest; Jesus (Heb 4:14). Who offered his sacrifice “once for all” (Heb 10:10). “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Heb 10:14) - there is no need for repeated propitiatory sacrifices, The Lord perfected his own once for all time. Indeed “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” (Rom 4:7-8) - Once for all perfecting, for all time is their sin covered, for all time they stand forgiven, sin not counted to them.

If you commit a mortal sin, is that counted to you? If yes, how are you the blessed man of Romans, the one once for all perfected?

The above I see being vital and necessary from the reformation.

Regards

Lincs

 

[R_C]

If you commit a mortal sin, is that counted to you? If yes, how are you the blessed man of Romans, the one once for all perfected?

The above I see being vital and necessary from the reformation.

Regards

Lincs

Ah, sola fide…another wonderfully fallacious error…if mortal sins are not counted and men reborn in Baptism cannot lose salvation, then what sort of idea is that of Christ giving the Apostles the authority to “remit and retain sins”, and what was wrong with Paul telling us to “run as to win the race”, and telling us that he chastises his body “lest, after having preached to others, he himself should be disproved”? The Apostle James was very clear: faith alone is not enough.

 

[JonNC]

Ah, sola fide…another wonderfully fallacious error…if mortal sins are not counted and men reborn in Baptism cannot lose salvation, then what sort of idea is that of Christ giving the Apostles the authority to “remit and retain sins”, and what was wrong with Paul telling us to “run as to win the race”, and telling us that he chastises his body “lest, after having preached to others, he himself should be disproved”? .

What do these have to do with sola fide?

The Apostle James was very clear: faith alone is not enough

You’re right. By grace alone through faith in Christ, we come to justification, but “there is no justification with sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”

Jon

 

[R_C]

What do these have to do with sola fide?

Sola fide asserts God’s pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith. Faith is seen as passive, merely receiving Christ and all his benefits, among which benefits are the active and passive righteousness of Jesus Christ. Christ’s righteousness, according to the followers of “sola fide,” is imputed (or attributed) by God to the believing sinner (as opposed to infused or imparted), so that the divine verdict and pardon of the believing sinner is based not upon anything in the sinner, nor even faith itself, but upon Jesus Christ and his righteousness alone, which are received through faith alone. As Luther puts it, “All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”.

As you can see, this clearly contradicts the teachings I quoted, and is directly related to the question “If you commit a mortal sin, is that counted to you? If yes, how are you the blessed man of Romans” to which I was replying. I hope I clarified your doubt.

 

[Lincoln7]

Ah, sola fide…another wonderfully fallacious error…if mortal sins are not counted and men reborn in Baptism cannot lose salvation, then what sort of idea is that of Christ giving the Apostles the authority to “remit and retain sins”, and what was wrong with Paul telling us to “run as to win the race”, and telling us that he chastises his body “lest, after having preached to others, he himself should be disproved”? The Apostle James was very clear: faith alone is not enough.

And the text of both Romans and Hebrews I quoted?

Each of the verses you allude to are perfectly comfortable within the perseverance of the saints as held in refomred theology.

Regards

Lincs

 

[didymus]

Would the Trent reforms have occurred without the Reformation?

Probably not, and there’s the problem.
The Protestant rebellion would not have occurred (I suspect) if not for the Great Schism. Also, there were repeated attempts to reform the Church from within which failed.
Was the “Reformation” a scourge that God allowed in order to bring about Trent and real reformation? I think it’s possible.

 

[JonNC]

Sola fide asserts God’s pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith. Faith is seen as passive, merely receiving Christ and all his benefits, among which benefits are the active and passive righteousness of Jesus Christ. Christ’s righteousness, according to the followers of “sola fide,” is imputed (or attributed) by God to the believing sinner (as opposed to infused or imparted), so that the divine verdict and pardon of the believing sinner is based not upon anything in the sinner, nor even faith itself, but upon Jesus Christ and his righteousness alone, which are received through faith alone. As Luther puts it, “All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”.

As you can see, this clearly contradicts the teachings I quoted, and is directly related to the question “If you commit a mortal sin, is that counted to you? If yes, how are you the blessed man of Romans” to which I was replying. I hope I clarified your doubt.

No, I know what sola fide is, and what it teaches. My question is what does “…if mortal sins are not counted and men reborn in Baptism cannot lose salvation” have to do with sola fide. Lutherans believe in sola fide, and teach that those regenerated in baptism can lose the Holy Spirit, that sins must be confessed and absolved. I would also contend the thought the “anything within the sinner”, as sanctification, theosis, if you will, must take place. Faith must be active.

Jon

 

[R_C]

And the text of both Romans and Hebrews I quoted?

Each of the verses you allude to are perfectly comfortable within the perseverance of the saints as held in refomred theology.

No, they are not. Scripture alone says that faith justifies, but does not suffice for salvation. That in fact works are needed, that there is a kind of faith that is insufficient, that love is greater than faith (love, of course, is expressed by how we chose to behave towards others, especially those we dislike). Scripture refutes Luther’s argument, and the protestant theology that all a sinner needs to do is accept Christ as their savior to be saved (as if Christ Himself hadn’t dismissed this error in more than one occasion).

Of course, I am almost sure that later protestant doctrines have tweaked Luther’s “sola fide” into a 2.0 or 3.0 version that cleverly works around the obvious contradictions. That does not make the premises less unsound. There is no such thing as a “blessed man” or as the “perseverance of the saints” by faith alone. It’s an old argument refuted time and again for about 5 centuries. I neither have the knowledge nor the will to go over it here, but I most humbly beg you to read what centuries of theologians have said about this man-made 16th Century construct that constitutes one of the (if not the) greatest departure from orthodox Christian doctrine.

 

[R_C]

No, I know what sola fide is, and what it teaches. My question is what does “…if mortal sins are not counted and men reborn in Baptism cannot lose salvation” have to do with sola fide. Lutherans believe in sola fide, and teach that those regenerated in baptism can lose the Holy Spirit, that sins must be confessed and absolved.

Faith must be active, but is not necessarily so by itself. Faith is one thing, works another. They work hand in hand, of course. But we know there is a kind of faith that is without works. We know it from Scripture.

Sola Fide denies the possibility that a believer can lose salvation. The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord of the Lutheran Churches, dated 1571 says: “Indeed, neither contrition nor love nor any other virtue, but faith alone is the means by which we can reach forth and obtain the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the remission of sin.” And Luther wrote very clearly: “Now you see how rich is the Christian man; for, though he will, he cannot lose his salvation, however great his sins may be, unless he refuse to believe. No sin can damn him, but unbelief alone.”

Therefore, responding to the other poster, I mentioned that his belief that mortal sins are not counted is part of the erroneous idea of salvation by faith alone, for how could a man saved by faith alone lose salvation at all or by any means? Yet we know that the kind of sin termed mortal deprives us of the sanctifying grace merited for us all by Christ and received at Baptism, and that the further action of the apostles is needed for the remission of those sins (as mandated by Christ).

And, forgive me, but the Lutheran “holy absolution” openly contradicts sola fide (in Luther’s words, “the Christian man…though he will, cannot lose salvation…no sin can damn him, but unbelief alone”). But if a Christian man commits a mortal sin and never repents, he indeed loses salvation - no matter how strong his faith in Christ. In fact, God does not condemn anyone - only man can will to lose salvation.

 

[Lincoln7]

No, they are not. Scripture alone says that faith justifies, but does not suffice for salvation. That in fact works are needed, that there is a kind of faith that is insufficient, that love is greater than faith (love, of course, is expressed by how we chose to behave towards others, especially those we dislike). Scripture refutes Luther’s argument, and the protestant theology that all a sinner needs to do is accept Christ as their savior to be saved (as if Christ Himself hadn’t dismissed this error in more than one occasion).

Indeed there is a dead faith and a living and active one, the latter of which alone secures justification. My point is that the verses I quoted from Hebrews, and Romans clearly teach the once for all perfecting sacrifice of Christ, such that all the sins of the elect are dealt with fully. Their sins are not counted to them, it’s simply what the text of Romans says, with utter plainness and clarity. “Blessed is the man against whom The Lord will not count his sin.”

Indeed Gill notes in his commentary at this point regarding Hebrews 10:14; "these Christ, by his sacrifice, has perfected, and has perfectly fulfilled the law for them; he has perfectly expiated their sins; he has obtained the full pardon of all their sins, and complete redemption; he has perfectly justified them from all things, and that for ever" (1)

And concerning Romans 4:7-8; "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. As he does not to those whom he justifies in Christ, and by his righteousness; for the sins of such he has imputed to his Son, as their surety; and he has bore them, took them away, having made full satisfaction for them; so that these persons will never be charged with them: they now appear before the throne without fault, and are blameless and irreproveable in the sight of God, and therefore must be eternally happy; for he will never think of their sins any more to their hurt; he will remember them no more; he “will never reckon them to them”, but acquit them from them, justify and accept them; wherefore they must be secure from wrath and condemnation, enjoy much peace and comfort now, and be happy hereafter." (2)

This recognition of the place of perspicous infallible scripture in governing doctrine and belief is an essential of the reformation tradition. To keep this on topic; this recognition by the reformers and those who stand in their tradition of the declarative nature of justification and forgiveness of sins, as opposed to a progressive view of such this, was an absolute necessity that the reformation brought.

Regards

Lincs

(1) & (2) - Gill’s commentary on the bible, bible.cc/romans/4-8.htm

 

[TEPO]

If God ordered it, then it was necessary.

 

[brb3]

The Protestants have better music & choirs !!
And, their sermons/homilys are better …
And they tend to tithe the full 10th more often…
And, they read scripture more…
And, some are better @ evangelism …excepting the Jesuits!!
And they have better catechism for the children…

So, IMO, we need to get as many of them back to Cath. Church as possible …to let them help us in the areas we have slacked off in.

 

[brb3]

Not the way it happened.

Was reform needed in the Church? Yes.

But the Council of Trent addressed many of the problems the reformers had. I doubt Luther would’ve broken with the Church if the Council of Trent happened in 1500 instead of 1546 (or if Lateran V addressed any of the issues). Calvin and Zwingli though? They probably would’ve broken regardless, but the following would’ve been much smaller.

If there was anything Trent didn’t reform, Vatican II reformed it. More Scripture readings in Mass (what Luther really wanted), more active participation for the laity (i.e they understand what is happening and truly offer up a holy sacrifice, instead of not really knowing what is happening – lasting effects from the modernist explosion in the 60s/70s, which btw was building up in the Church since ca. 1900 and NOT a result of VII, not withstanding), some vernacular in the Mass even if in practice it is more like 98% in the vernacular, and a presentation of Aquinas and the other scholastics in light of the ECF’s, especially St. Augustine.

Imagine if this happened in 1476 and not 1546.

But hey, could be worse I guess. The Reformation sure did give the Church a wake up call and to combat it we got a lot of great saints.

Excellent thoughts…

 

[ColdComfort]

I don’t think Luther could have ever been reconciled to the Church before or after Trent. His theology was clearly rejected at the that Council. I am prepared to accept that the reformers struck something in sincerly religious Christians. Perhaps what they thought was a simpler more direct relationship with God? A faith that was less compromising with the world? I don’t know but the great sin was the division of the body of Christ.

But in the main, I don’t think the reformation was about doctrine. Heresies come and go within and outside the Church. Why was this one, or rather series of heresies, sucessful. The tide of nationalism and individualism was breaking up the unity of the Christian west. Christian princes seized the opportunity with honest and dishonest belief. In the 16th c. Valois and Hapsburg were the great warmakers. In the 20th war was made by tribe against tribe and the more brutal because of that.The doctrine hit a chord, and still does in some, for those who loved England or Saxony more than Christendom and their own judgement over that of God’s Church. They were mistaken, not least in failing to see that they could have had both.

 

[mackbrislawn]

It’s a hermanutical principle, which simply posits scripture is our only infallible guide, not our only guide…

Lincs

How do we know scripture is infallible? We don’t. We don’t know that at all. It is simply something that is posited, not something that is known.

Catholics accept the infallibility of scripture because the Church teaches so. But if one does not accept the authority of the Church to teach, there is no longer any reason to accept scripture.

Scripture is interpretation through and through. What is the point in having an infallible scripture if what we get from it is not infallible?

 

[Lincoln7]

How do we know scripture is infallible? We don’t. We don’t know that at all. It is simply something that is posited, not something that is known.

Catholics accept the infallibility of scripture because the Church teaches so. But if one does not accept the authority of the Church to teach, there is no longer any reason to accept scripture.

Scripture is interpretation through and through. What is the point in having an infallible scripture if what we get from it is not infallible?

It comes to us from the apostles, and thus bears their authority. How did a Jew of the second temple period know his scriptures were infallible? Did he have an infallible authority to say as much for him?

How do you know Rome is infallible? It’s simply something that is posited, not something that is known…

How many verses have been infallibly defined?

The move from sola eclessia to sola Scriptura was essential from the reformation.

Kind regards, been a while since we dialogued on here…

Lincs

 

[brb3]

It comes to us from the apostles, and thus bears their authority. How did a Jew of the second temple period know his scriptures were infallible? Did he have an infallible authority to say as much for him?

How do you know Rome is infallible? It’s simply something that is posited, not something that is known…

How many verses have been infallibly defined?

The move from sola eclessia to sola Scriptura was essential from the reformation.

Kind regards, been a while since we dialogued on here…

Lincs

Christ said he would never leave his Church w/o guidance, HS the Paraclete to guide it, and it would never fail.

What Protestant reformation church was he describing ?

Show us another that has existed since Pentecost 33 AD. Which church has a Catechism that can c/w Vatican 2’s.

There really are no other clear choices …