"Starting" new churches . .

[bookgirl32]

and that is where i will disagree. luther never wanted to split. his nailing of the theses was an invitation to debate those issues (that he was deeply wrestling with). the church and its hierarchy did not engage in discussion but in condemnation. that is not the attitude nor the actions of Jesus. the catholic church excommunicated luther, not the other way around. the protestant reformation was made by the catholic church and her arrogance at the time.

we are never honor bound to obey those who demand unjust things.

No, Luther did not want to split, but he did. The Church did not change any of their doctrine, which WAS what Martin Luther wanted to happen. The Catholic Church did nothing but refuse to change the doctrine of the Church, they in no way at all forced Luther into any kind of excommunication. He accepted it when he did not agree with the Church.

I’m willing to admit that the Church’s LEADERS arrogance at the time caused a lot of the problems. But it is you who continues to say that no person is perfect, and that does not effect truth.

 

[bookgirl32]

The fault wasn’t all on Luther’s side. The Church was hardly the innocent victim of an arrogant Luther. Reform had been delayed and blocked by corrupt clergy and popes who, among other things, were interested in pillaging the prosperity of Germany to support their lavish lifestyles. Superstition was widespread and priests were uneducated and unbelieving. No leadership or direction had been provided theologically from the papacy, which was still recovering from the days of two popes and the lack of a definition of its own authority It is only a Catholic myth to say that Luther broke from a church that had its act together.

I partially agree with you in that the people in leadership in the Church were causing some of the problems prompting some of the reformation (let’s not forget Kind Henry VIII here). As far as “two popes”, the Church never faultered on who was the true pope, just because one was claiming something does not mean that he had anything to do with the Church. The theological leadership, if you mean doctrine, had not changed before that and has not changed since. So did all of the people have their act together, of course not, did it cause any sort of breakdown in Church doctrine? No.

 

[Truthstalker]

No, Luther did not want to split, but he did. The Church did not change any of their doctrine, which WAS what Martin Luther wanted to happen. The Catholic Church did nothing but refuse to change the doctrine of the Church, they in no way at all forced Luther into any kind of excommunication. He accepted it when he did not agree with the Church.

I’m willing to admit that the Church’s LEADERS arrogance at the time caused a lot of the problems. But it is you who continues to say that no person is perfect, and that does not effect truth.

It’s more complicated than that. The 529 Council of Orange was the last time the Church formally set forth a statement on justification. Luther actually said nothing new that had not been discussed for centuries within the Church. from what I’ve read. His views were not condemned until after he had been excommunicated. and that was at Trent. He was excommunicated for his statements about the Pope, I think.

But I’m not Lutheran. The reformation was not centered around Luther as some sort of anti-Christ. I see the mindset that he was as bizarre. You need to consider the whole picture, not just Luther-as-rebel.

 

[Truthstalker]

I partially agree with you in that the people in leadership in the Church were causing some of the problems prompting some of the reformation (let’s not forget Kind Henry VIII here). As far as “two popes”, the Church never faultered on who was the true pope, just because one was claiming something does not mean that he had anything to do with the Church. The theological leadership, if you mean doctrine, had not changed before that and has not changed since. So did all of the people have their act together, of course not, did it cause any sort of breakdown in Church doctrine? No.

It caused a massive questioning of where the authority in the church actually lay: councils, Pope, bishops, or universities. With the popes not leading the church, things happened. And the church was divided between the pope and the anti-pope, and then there was the 70 years in Avignon. Many followed the one who was eventually declared to be the anti-pope. It was a thorough mess. Many things simply had not been defined.

 

[bookgirl32]

Here we have several arguments

1… All Christians are in the universal church. There is also the Catholic Church, which claims, among other things, to be the universal church. There is also the Lutheran church, which is a subset of the universal church. In “starting” a new church my understanding is that Luther did not claim to be starting anything original, but rather reforming what was already there. He regarded what he was doing as being more faithful to the apostolic tradition than what was happening in the Catholic church.

Yes, he did, and I agree he didn’t want to break. But his personal interpretation and opinions did not make him correct.

I have noticed at lease one thread on the issue of the Catholic church versus the universal church. I have not read that thread.

I haven’t either.

2

. I’m not Lutheran. Luther’s “break” was not as Catholics seem to view it, as if he was some kind of new pope all the bad little Protestants went after. The Reformers considered what they were doing as a faithful continuation, or re-introduction, of proper theology. You might want to read Alistair McGrath’s book on the intellectual foundations of the reformation if you are interested in where I am coming from. My theological predecessors are more with the reformed than with the Lutherans. There were several reformations happening at the same time, some of which stayed within the Catholic Church.

I agree with what you say about all the reformers, I just don’t agree that they were correct, or had the authority to reform just by reading the Bible and interpreting it themselves.

1. Roman primacy is a questionable concept historically and theologically. This is one I am still looking into. My current theory is that the “rock” is faith, and that whatever primacy Peter was supposed to have ended during the book of Acts, when the church started and then Peter broke the gospel to the Gentiles, and then it was Paul, with Peter receding into the background.

Did Jesus say, “faith, on this rock I will build my church”?

That does not follow. The Catholic Church has historically striven for internal reform. That it has continually needed reform is telling.

Internal reform on matters of discipline, on matters of moral shortcomings of it’s leaders, etc. But never on doctrine.

There is a visible church in its various manifestations. As another poster pointed out, Paul was the one who called it a “pillar of truth.” I am sympathetic with the view that Catholics put way too much weight on that one verse to make Scripture fit with their idea of what the Church is. That verse does not stand in isolation from the rest of Scripture.

No, it doesn’t at all, it fits in perfectly (and obviously, I quoted the wrong person, but at least I know it’s in there, right? ) It’s a good Scripture fits the Church perfectly .

I disagree with this statement. Catholics disagree with each other all the time over all sorts of issues. If your requirement for truth is total, 100% agreement on all issues, then the Catholic church fails your test as well.

Catholics disagree with each other all the time, the Church does not. My point is that the truth is not coming from the minds and opinions of people, but from the revelation of God.

Jesus prayed that we would be one. Catholics seem to insist on disbelieving that God answered this prayer in John 17 in order to hold to their ecclesiology.

I’ll check this one out, dont’ have it memorized.

I appreciate you setting this up as a separate thread.

No problem!!

 

[bookgirl32]

It caused a massive questioning of where the authority in the church actually lay: councils, Pope, bishops, or universities. With the popes not leading the church, things happened. And the church was divided between the pope and the anti-pope, and then there was the 70 years in Avignon. Many followed the one who was eventually declared to be the anti-pope. It was a thorough mess. Many things simply had not been defined.

The pope (singular), never stopped leading the Church. How good of a job he was doing in his own personal morals was another question, but not one that would effect God’s protection of His word through the pope as an instrument.

Many also followed the reformers, how was it any different? There was still no break, the people following the true pope followed him the others didn’t.

Things may have not been defined to your standards, but everything was THERE, and nothing was changed.

 

[bookgirl32]

It’s more complicated than that. The 529 Council of Orange was the last time the Church formally set forth a statement on justification. Luther actually said nothing new that had not been discussed for centuries within the Church. from what I’ve read. His views were not condemned until after he had been excommunicated. and that was at Trent. He was excommunicated for his statements about the Pope, I think.

But I’m not Lutheran. The reformation was not centered around Luther as some sort of anti-Christ. I see the mindset that he was as bizarre. You need to consider the whole picture, not just Luther-as-rebel.

I’m not, it’s just easy to reference Luther as a representative of the whole reformation, which you’re right, is not good on my part, and I’m sorry.

His statements about the pope would’ve still been against official church doctrine. And I guess I didn’t realize people thought he was bizarre?

 

[Truthstalker]

The pope (singular), never stopped leading the Church. How good of a job he was doing in his own personal morals was another question, but not one that would effect God’s protection of His word through the pope as an instrument.

Many also followed the reformers, how was it any different? There was still no break, the people following the true pope followed him the others didn’t.

Things may have not been defined to your standards, but everything was THERE, and nothing was changed.

No. There were popes that simply did not lead. Period. There were other popes who were wholly uninterested in anything but political power. It wasn’t simply a matter of poor personal morals (though that happened) but an abdication of responsibility that lasted for centuries.

I haven’t done the comparison yet but I have heard some argue that Trent is in direct contradiction to the Council of Orange. By that argument Church teaching has changed. There isn’t room on this thread for that debate, and I am not ready to advance the argument. But many will say church teaching has changed.

And not everything was there all along. Not everything was accepted as authoritative Catholic teaching that has now been defined. Many points were openly debated for many centuries, with sharp disagreements on both sides. Many Catholics rejected papal infallibility, for example, until 1870. Some left the Catholic church after that, others submitted and stifled their protests. Look at Doellinger, Kenrick and Hefele, for example.

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m not, it’s just easy to reference Luther as a representative of the whole reformation, which you’re right, is not good on my part, and I’m sorry.

His statements about the pope would’ve still been against official church doctrine. And I guess I didn’t realize people thought he was bizarre?

No - the mindset that Luther = some sort of anti-pope is bizarre.

The Reformation was perhaps the most complex historical event the human race has ever gone through. Simplification helps no one untangle the knot we are faced with.

 

[bengal_fan]

Actually, the Church did meet with Luther to discuss his theses. They actually agreed with a large portion of what he listed, they were in the process of, for example, doing something to stop the sale of indulgences; it was the items that they couldn’t change to suit Luther’s new theology that got Luther all hot and bothered. Luther left the Church, and broke his vows to God. He was hardly the innocent victim of an arrogant Church who just wouldn’t listen to him.

Reform Came Before the Reformation

actually the church did not meet to discuss these things with luther, they met and told him to recant without any discussion. he, in good conscience could not (if there had been allowed a debate, maybe he would have…who knows). he offered to take a vow of silence and stop teaching but he would not recant without debate. the church then excommunicated him. then the church (or at least people high up in the church) began to circulate insulting things towards luther (not that he hadn’t been doing that himself as well). this, coupled with luther’s short temper did not make matters better.

you have to remember as well, when luther was summoned to a hearing, he had legitimate fear. everyone remembered what happend to jan hus. he was summoned to a hearing under protection and when he arrived, was burned alive.

 

[bengal_fan]

As a Priest Luther was bound by his vows of obedience to the Church. Once he failed to submit to the lawful authority of the Church and his superiors, He placed himself outside of the communion of Christ. Any Church coming out of this is simply outside of that communion.

a vow made to a corrupt organization is no vow at all. a soldier makes a vow to obey his commanding officer but has the right to disobey an immoral order. and i would disagree that the communion of Christ can only be found in the roman catholic church. the orthodox churches have had the communion with Christ since the beginning as well.

Now I am not at all well versed on the particulars of Luther, Calvan or the others and I will freely grant that the Church was in need of reform. But the effort of Luther and the others should have been to regain communion with the Church and not go charging off creating new churches seperate from and in violent opposition to the Holy See.
If the tone among the protestants had been one of, “we’re out here but we’d like eventually to get back”, the reforms within the church could have eventually healed the issues. Instead, today we have thousands of denominations who are united only in their rejection of Christ’s Established Church.

Peace
James

the problem is that luther didn’t split from the church, the church threw him out. he had no desire to start a “new” church. but he and the people who found what he said to be true needed a place to come together and worship Christ since the catholic church had rejected them.

 

[bengal_fan]

Many Protestants regard their predecessors as having been thrown out of the church, either via excommunication (Luther) or declaration (anathemas at the Council of Trent). The Catholic Church used to be a much broader place theologically.

Don’t complain about Protestants being outside the Church when you were the ones who threw us out the door.

And many Protestants would like to see the Church reunited. There would have to be significant changes on both sides of the Tiber for that to happen. Rome’s refusal to ever admit error on matters of faith and doctrine is a huge obstacle. Rome’s demand for complete and unconditional surrender is another, without Rome being willing to budge an inch.

I think that mistakes happened on both sides during the Reformation. If it had been handled correctly, then the gifts and talents and energies of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli and others would have gone into the internal reform of the Church and they would be regarded today as Bernard of Clairvaux or Francis or other reformers are within the church . Instead much blood and energy and thought went into an internal war.

 

[bengal_fan]

Yes, this is what I believe, but I believe it b/c the Church teaches it, not because I came up with my own opinion about what the Bible says.

but it is still your opinion. you are not a robot. you have decided through your interpretation that the catholic church teaches everything perfectly and you should listen to them on everything. it still starts with your own interpretation.

 

[justinthemartyr]

uhhh, was there another interpretation somewhere previous to catholic interpretation.

let’s see.

Christ ascended to heaven in 33ad.

Paul began writing the NT (thess) in 48ad. what did they use during tose years without a Bible?

The NT scriptures wer finally collected from all over the map, to be studied by the one Church in 197ad.

what did they use before that?

The canon of the OT and NT were canonized officially in 382 ad.
what did they use before that?

It was the Church(catholic) which led the people prior to these events occurred.

god was very wise in not letting there be a book called the Bible until 382ad. he showed us exactly what was, and was NOt prior to this event, by teaching His Word, through His one Church.

all other churches are but different religions started by man, not God. God started one single church, one flock, one shepherd.

 

[JRKH]

a vow made to a corrupt organization is no vow at all. a soldier makes a vow to obey his commanding officer but has the right to disobey an immoral order. and i would disagree that the communion of Christ can only be found in the roman catholic church. the orthodox churches have had the communion with Christ since the beginning as well.

If I take a vow freely, then the vow is valid regardless of the status of the imperfections of the organization. If I am coerced to take a vow that is different. Martin Luther was not forced to take a vow. He did so freely and spent many years teaching for this “corrupt” organization.

the problem is that luther didn’t split from the church, the church threw him out. he had no desire to start a “new” church. but he and the people who found what he said to be true needed a place to come together and worship Christ since the catholic church had rejected them.

If ML didn’t want to start a “new” Church, why did he? If they “needed a place to come together and worship”, why not create a brotherhood that would do that yet continue to seek reunification with the Church?

Enough -

Lets’ not argue anymore. I will try to put together a post that is more constructive.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

To all,
There is certainly enough blame to go around to all sides in the protestant schism and I truly dislike arguing these things because they only serve to drive us further apart.

I am reminded of the situation in the middle east where the various factions are still fighting and killing each other over slights that are hundreds and even thousands of years old. It’s just the old He said - She said - They did - We did argument. It makes me sad. I hope that we as followers of Christ can see beyond all of this “history”, which is all written by someone with a slant, so can never be truly unbiased.

So much occurred during the Protestant reformation on so many levels that we will never sort it out here.

First there is “Church” Level. Therein lies the question of the power and abuses of certain members of the church, including some popes. This level lies within the realm of practices and not doctrine.

Second is the Secular Political Level. The nobles and kings were jealous of each other and ever ready to exploit a situation to strengthen their own power. In addition they took the opportunity to seize the wealth of the Church wherever possible and dispose of many political enemies.

Third is the Socio Economic Level. This tied heavily to the second level. The people in many cases had been burdened by taxes and tithes, lack or rights, plagues, wars, etc. for centuries. There was developing a new middle class of merchants and craftspeople who were better educated than the old peasentry. Plus there was this new item called the printing press which was revolutionizing the world of ideas.

Fourth is the Doctrinal Level. Whether Martin Luther was justified in his protests against the church practices (as he certainly was in, at least some of them) The deeper question remains as to was he correct in doctrinal issues such as the biggie – Sola Scriptura.

If the issues between the proestant leaders and the Church could have been kept out of the political and economic realms, perhaps the rifts would have healed themselves long ago. As it was, the Protestant Reformation touched off a cultural powderkeg. Once that happened, there was really no one short of Christ Himself who could stop it. It spun out of control until there existed several main splits.

Today there are so many splits that, even with a full fledged concerted effort it would take many decades, or centuries to heal them all.

So I will pray that God will lead each of us as individuals to do His will and work for unity of His people in His Church through understanding of each other, truthful and charitalbe debate, and prayerful discernment.

Peace
James

 

[bookgirl32]

but it is still your opinion. you are not a robot. you have decided through your interpretation that the catholic church teaches everything perfectly and you should listen to them on everything. it still starts with your own interpretation.

Yes, and everyone has to make that decision. You make that decision when you decide to believe in the Bible alone, which still leaves the actual interpretation of the Bible up to you, which is what leads to all the different interpretations. But you’re right in your post above.

 

[bookgirl32]

uhhh, was there another interpretation somewhere previous to catholic interpretation.

let’s see.

Christ ascended to heaven in 33ad.

Paul began writing the NT (thess) in 48ad. what did they use during tose years without a Bible?

The NT scriptures wer finally collected from all over the map, to be studied by the one Church in 197ad.

what did they use before that?

The canon of the OT and NT were canonized officially in 382 ad.
what did they use before that?

It was the Church(catholic) which led the people prior to these events occurred.

god was very wise in not letting there be a book called the Bible until 382ad. he showed us exactly what was, and was NOt prior to this event, by teaching His Word, through His one Church.

all other churches are but different religions started by man, not God. God started one single church, one flock, one shepherd.

And I agree with what you say here completely. I think what’s troublesome to TS and Bengal and the rest is that when we say “started a church” it can be taken to mean, “we, the reformers, just did it to be difficult, with no actual moral concern.” Which isn’t what most of us mean when we say that, I think most of us would readily agree that the reformers motives were sincere, and were helped along by leaders in the Church acting inappropriately. It still doesn’t mean that the alternate doctrine they came up with was correct, but I’m just saying I get where their concern comes from.

 

[bookgirl32]

To all,
There is certainly enough blame to go around to all sides in the protestant schism and I truly dislike arguing these things because they only serve to drive us further apart.

I am reminded of the situation in the middle east where the various factions are still fighting and killing each other over slights that are hundreds and even thousands of years old. It’s just the old He said - She said - They did - We did argument. It makes me sad. I hope that we as followers of Christ can see beyond all of this “history”, which is all written by someone with a slant, so can never be truly unbiased.

So much occurred during the Protestant reformation on so many levels that we will never sort it out here.

First there is “Church” Level. Therein lies the question of the power and abuses of certain members of the church, including some popes. This level lies within the realm of practices and not doctrine.

Second is the Secular Political Level. The nobles and kings were jealous of each other and ever ready to exploit a situation to strengthen their own power. In addition they took the opportunity to seize the wealth of the Church wherever possible and dispose of many political enemies.

Third is the Socio Economic Level. This tied heavily to the second level. The people in many cases had been burdened by taxes and tithes, lack or rights, plagues, wars, etc. for centuries. There was developing a new middle class of merchants and craftspeople who were better educated than the old peasentry. Plus there was this new item called the printing press which was revolutionizing the world of ideas.

Fourth is the Doctrinal Level. Whether Martin Luther was justified in his protests against the church practices (as he certainly was in, at least some of them) The deeper question remains as to was he correct in doctrinal issues such as the biggie – Sola Scriptura.

If the issues between the proestant leaders and the Church could have been kept out of the political and economic realms, perhaps the rifts would have healed themselves long ago. As it was, the Protestant Reformation touched off a cultural powderkeg. Once that happened, there was really no one short of Christ Himself who could stop it. It spun out of control until there existed several main splits.

Today there are so many splits that, even with a full fledged concerted effort it would take many decades, or centuries to heal them all.

So I will pray that God will lead each of us as individuals to do His will and work for unity of His people in His Church through understanding of each other, truthful and charitalbe debate, and prayerful discernment.

Peace
James

Yeah, really agree here!!

 

[Truthstalker]

And I agree with what you say here completely. I think what’s troublesome to TS and Bengal and the rest is that when we say “started a church” it can be taken to mean, “we, the reformers, just did it to be difficult, with no actual moral concern.” Which isn’t what most of us mean when we say that, I think most of us would readily agree that the reformers motives were sincere, and were helped along by leaders in the Church acting inappropriately. It still doesn’t mean that the alternate doctrine they came up with was correct, but I’m just saying I get where their concern comes from.

When people say things like “start a church” it implies that nothing is right in their walk with God, that God will not bless them, that there is no grace and no hope of salvation for them. I hear the sound of the anathemas from Trent rolling through the centuries. Not a proclamation of the gospel but condemnation.