The devil was part of the Reformation

[Jake99]

both

are to “grow until the harvest”, and since that harvest has yet to be reaped, to divide human beings into tidy groups is not for us to do - especially as we belong to one of those groups, and will not know which until the Judgement. We just aren’t equipped to make that separation - for we who judge, are ourselves constantly being judged, not least by our reactions to others.

And, it is far too simple - and history is not simple; it’s complicated, ambiguous, perplexing. Rather than being like an avenue of trees planted at intervals, clearly separate from each other, it’s like a jungle. Historical facts don’t take well to being chopped up with a machete - and chopped-up history is what one gets if one tries to make out that one group is uniquely evil, and another is wholly spotless. History is not black and white - its a lot of other colours, because it is the experience of flawed human beings.

Which is also why sweeping judgements have no place in historical study - “All the Reformers were evil” is as useless and deceptive as saying “All Popes are evil”.

There may be a demonic element in the Reformation - but that is a theological judgement; not an historical one. Because history is complex, and because man is sinful and flawed and foolish, and because Catholics and Protestants have the same nature and temptations, one cannot say “This group is bad” unless one says the same of other human groups - including one’s own. That is one of the reasons why it is so pointless for one Christian group to belittle another - they are all under judgement, and all under grace.

What such belittling forgets, is that we are saved and protected by God’s grace - not by any native strength of ours. So if we are not all axe-murderers and devil-worshippers, that is no reason for us to boast at all.

Where does evil comes from ? Our own wicked hearts.
What stops us doing evil ? Nothing but God’s mercy.

Bravo,

All have been divided and all are sinners because it is Satan who has led all to this place and time. That too is Gods plan. The next part of the plan is to unveil the Messiah so you can compare what he did, to what Satan did. Faith enough to investigate, and facts enough to convince, that the man can be no other than the Son of God or by whatever name you call him by.

According to the bible, the Messiah speaks blasphemy as Jesus did and words you have not heard before. He also, with Gods assistence mysteriously puts on the greatest leadership and capability show on Earth. They will call him many things both wise and strange and the people and leaders will reject and try and kill him. The story of Christ does not change, and you are not to see him until the demonstrations are over.

How many doors will he knock on before finding a true believer?

 

[Paris_Blues]

Thank goodness for heresies…

…at least we know what is True annd what is not!

 

[x4us]

SolaChristo:

If and when Catholics are willing to repent of pre reformation excesses then the true church of God will become more united. If the blame is always on the reformers and never about repentance Gods church will do just fine without you.

Dear SolaChristo - Please be specific is stating your concerns. You quoted my whole letter, then added a sentence of your own in red towards the end. What exactly did you mean by that? Why try to marginalize every specific point I made w/ one* sweeping generalization? *

Again, in the above quote I see the problem of sweeping generalization. We will be happy to engage in a logical conversation w/ you if you will speak specifically. There are logical answers to all of your concerns. Your last sentence drips of venom, which followers of Christ should avoid. You seem to be asserting that you belong to “God’s church,” and you’ll not let “us” in unless we repent. What exactly are you trying to suggest here?

 

[Paris_Blues]

x4us:

What exactly are you trying to suggest here?

I personally think they’re trying to say Catholics aren’t part of God’s Church…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

NonDenom:

Hi All
Your right in the fact that satan played a big part in the Reformation. It was satan that caused the leaders of the Catholic church to become corrupt, which brought about the need for a reformation in the church.
Thanks.

OTOH - since satan’s activity is not empirically verifiable, it is not something of which historians can take any notice.​

What is more, human activity, that of God, and that of any other created beings (such as angels or demons) can’t be tidily sliced up and separated: history is not like anatomy, in which tidy separations of this kind are possible. A moving picture would be a less inadequate - but still inadequate - analogy.

Which is another reason why it is impossible to say of a particular movement, “It’s satan wot dunnit” - as though a movement of which one disapproved for theological, moral, or doctrinal reasons were uniquely satanic; and a movement one approved of for those reasons, were wholly satan-free.

Trying to finger the Reformers as uniquely evil, and ignoring such things as the all too real and numerous and long standing abuses in the Church - abuses recognised as such by Catholics themselves much earlier than 1517, and well after 1517 - is ignorant at best.

If the abuses and blemishes were not real, why did the Council of Trent promulgate canons for the reform of the Church, and strike at the root of the traffic in indulgences by abolishing the quaestorships which made the traffic possible ? The need for reform “in head and members” had been recognised since the 14th century - the tragedy of the Council of Trent, is that it did something in this direction only after a major explosion took place: it needed the shock of Protestantism to underline the urgency of the need for reform, which the Councils of Constance, Basel, and Lateran V had recognised on paper, but done little about. What reforming efforts there were before 1520 or so, in Spain, France, and Italy, were stimulated in th first instance by gifted individual Catholics, such as Cardinal Ximenes, Lefevre d’Etaples, or Bishop Gioberti - but not by the Papacy. It was not nearly active enough in reforming itself - until after 1530 or so

It’s understandable that someone who has been a Catholic a very short time should have an over-simple view of the Reformation - people do not usually become Catholics because of the blemishes of the Church, after all - but a POV can be understandable without being valid. ##

 

[Thal59]

x4us:

Dear SolaChristo - Please be specific is stating your concerns. You quoted my whole letter, then added a sentence of your own in red towards the end. What exactly did you mean by that? Why try to marginalize every specific point I made w/ one* sweeping generalization? *

Again, in the above quote I see the problem of sweeping generalization. We will be happy to engage in a logical conversation w/ you if you will speak specifically. There are logical answers to all of your concerns. Your last sentence drips of venom, which followers of Christ should avoid. You seem to be asserting that you belong to “God’s church,” and you’ll not let “us” in unless we repent. What exactly are you trying to suggest here?

You are wasting your time X4us. The principle reason why I sometimes lose my Christian demeanor when debating with Protestants is when they demonstrate an unbelievable inability to debate specific points. People who can be specific are truly trying to learn something, people who cannot are simply looking to argue.

Since most Protestant arguments don’t hold water, they will usually digress, or change the subject entirely. They are masters at taking things out of context whether it be scriptures, or a Catholic’s personal opinions. I have dealt with SolaChristo before. He seems to try and read an ulterior motive in each thread. He then tries to decide what “rehashed” point the Catholic is trying to make, and then he refutes what he guesses is the poster’s motive. So even if you are really trying to learn something new, he will attempt to move the discussion into one of the classic arguements.

Good luck.

Thal59

 

[Klm]

Hi! Interesting question, was the devil part of the reformation? In way. He certainly rejoiced over the outcome. Just as he rejoices over all the divisions and anamosity over the issue that exists today. For me, the need is to look to the future, and I say that as one who is fascinated by history. It’s fascinating to me how the decisions of one man, or a small group of men, can have an effect that lasts through the centuries. But what might have been and who was at fault isn’t what we have to deal with today. We have to deal with the outcome. The fact is, we do have thousands of denominatons today. The fact is, all owe the fact that the church even existed in the 1500’s to be reformed is due only to Catholic diligence in the preceeding years. The fact is, there are many wonderful Christians, saintly protestants, who will never become Catholic. Nor should they. Now, before everyone gets all offended because I said that, let me explain why they shouldn’t. There are many people who don’t know Christ who will never go into a Catholic church to find him. Because of generational prejudices or even, in some areas, a lack of available Catholic churches. Think of the Bible belt where there is a Baptist church on practically every corner, yet only one Catholic church in the entire town. Someone needs to be there to reach them. Then there are the saints of the other denominations who, again, because of generational teaching (dad was a Baptist, granddad was a Baptist) will never go into a Catholic church. Who will minister to them? Question: Would Dietrich Bonhoeffer have been as effective if he had been a Catholic? What about all the Lutherans in Germany who never would have listened to him if he had been a Catholic. Remember, thousands of denominations is the reality today. Yet we all hold to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
Just my thoughts.
Kris

 

[Klm]

I just wanted to add that I don’t want anyone to think I was picking on the Baptists. Just using them as an example. You can substitute the denomination of your choice.
Kris

 

[bekalc]

Geer. I wanted to say that I do agree with Mere Christianity there is quite a bit that all Christians agree on. And a there are a whole lot of misunderstandings too. This being said I was just talking about other important issues that Protestants cannot agree on like (communion eternal security etc…)

I want to say that Geer is right to. I don’t think its fair to blame the reformers for everything. The Catholic Church was very corrupt at the time, many of the leaders were living hypocrities including (some of the popes, it looks like) If the Catholic church had been living its actual teaching, than the reformation probably wouldn’t have happened. The Church was refusing to reform itself and call a council to, for how long. They were giving warning and they didn’t do it. It’s not fair to blame just the reformers for this, I think its safe to say that the devil was using a whole lot of Catholics too. Not to mention the way the church responded…

Look, Satan did something evil with the reformation, but I think God did bring good out of it. Through the counter reformation, the Church reformed itself and well look how many people were reached for the gospel, in Latin America, Asia etc. The Church gained all those people in then some!

Plus you have the fact that so many Protestants really are doing good, and most today have had absolutely nothing to do with the reformation. They are wonderful Christians and you know what God is using them! One of the great things about them is they are really good at reaching this culture. As a former Protestant, I just know too many wonderful Protestants and have seen to many good things. God has really used Protestant people like John Wesley etc to do awesome things for the Lord. Please let’s not forget this in all of our hoopla. I know many Evangelical Protesants who are serving as missionaries in some of the toughest areas in the world. And can I say the stories they have to tell are nothing but amazing. God’s using them, inspite of what the devil did.

Kim this being said I do think that God wants one Church. And I’m beginning to think this is so important with the days we are coming too. Christians have a mission and that’s to reach the gospel, and I think all of these different groups need each other… I truly do… I believe God is powerfully enough to heal the broken wounds that have gone about it. But wounds are not going to be healed if one side just blames the other…

 

[Church_Militant]

SolaChristo:

When reading over this thread I not once saw someone place the blame on the Catholic hierachy but all the blame was put on the protestants-----thats a lot of what Im talking about (not all) but a lot.

Maybe because, just like in a marriage, divorce is not an option for a Christian…and therefore no excuse for bailing from the church if it has problems. The “reformation” was just exactly that. An unscriptural divorce from the Body of Christ. Trent dealt with the issues, but some folks wanted it their own way apparently.

The same thing is still prevelent among non-Catholics today. If there is a disagreement about something in any given church, the people do one of two things. 1) Go church shopping, or, 2) get together and open another church somewhere.

Someone told me that you only fail when you quit trying.
They quit trying to fix things from within…and they failed.
It was he easy way out IMO.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[SolaChristo]

Church Militant:

Maybe because, just like in a marriage, divorce is not an option for a Christian…and therefore no excuse for bailing from the church if it has problems. The “reformation” was just exactly that. An unscriptural divorce from the Body of Christ. Trent dealt with the issues, but some folks wanted it their own way apparently.

The same thing is still prevelent among non-Catholics today. If there is a disagreement about something in any given church, the people do one of two things. 1) Go church shopping, or, 2) get together and open another church somewhere.

Someone told me that you only fail when you quit trying.
They quit trying to fix things from within…and they failed.
It was he easy way out IMO.
Pax vobiscum,

Would anyone fault an abused wife to leave the home of an overbearing husband who was unwilling to change?

 

[SolaChristo]

x4us:

Dear SolaChristo - Please be specific is stating your concerns. You quoted my whole letter, then added a sentence of your own in red towards the end. What exactly did you mean by that? Why try to marginalize every specific point I made w/ one* sweeping generalization? *

Again, in the above quote I see the problem of sweeping generalization. We will be happy to engage in a logical conversation w/ you if you will speak specifically. There are logical answers to all of your concerns. Your last sentence drips of venom, which followers of Christ should avoid. You seem to be asserting that you belong to “God’s church,” and you’ll not let “us” in unless we repent. What exactly are you trying to suggest here?

I addressed your points about the process of apostacy and repentance. My point is that Prior to the reformation the RCC was unwilling to reform but was in dire need of reformation.

Also consider that the system was unwilling to be reformed there was no other way.

How is this sentence venomous?

 

[x4us]

In post #63, the sentence I felt was venomous was the last sentence in the highlighted quote at the top - where you suggested that you were in God’s true church and we are not, and that you’ll do fine w/o us. That seems venemous to me.

Other posts have dealt w/ the fact that the Catholic Church did deal w/ the excesses, so I’ll not cover that ground again.

I urge you to carefully think over the concerns raised over the “reformers.” Christ warns us that a house built on the fouundation of sand will perish. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli could not even agree on some very basic of elements of the faith: what is communion (real Presence or symbolic), is baptism necessary, and can one loose one’s salvation. These are very foundational issues.

They could not come to an agreement, and each man, wanting to be at the helm of the ship, excommunicated the others and went off on his own. This is a foundation of sand, not a foundation of rock. The shifting of the sandy foundation reveals thousands of denominations today, hardly in keeping w/ Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer of John 17, “may they be one as we are one.”

Christ prizes unity; the Evil One does not.

 

[Thal59]

Most people lose sight of the fact that the “reformation” reformed nothing. There was in fact, no reformation. Luther was rejected by every country he ventured into except his home Germany.

The “reformation” started in England with powermongers using the disguise of religious reformation as an excuse to plunder the church. They gained incredible wealth and power overnight. Luther then used the success of the thieves in England to persuade the German Princes to plunder the church in Germany and to use a sizable portion of the wealth to fund his state church.

When the German princes refused to surrender the booty to Luther, Luther stirred up the peasants against the princes - ergo, the “Peasant Wars” from 1523-1527 through which almost 250,000 peasants were killed.

Exactly what did the “reformers” reform and what do we give them credit for? If their true motive was to reform the church, they would have done so from within, not through schism and civil unrest, rebellion and mass murder.

Thal59

 

[bekalc]

SolaChristo:

I addressed your points about the process of apostacy and repentance. My point is that Prior to the reformation the RCC was unwilling to reform but was in dire need of reformation.

Also consider that the system was unwilling to be reformed there was no other way.

How is this sentence venomous?

I don’t think your being venamous of course you think it was necessary.

I want to point this out to you. A lot of Catholics at the time were very unhappy with the corruption that existed in their Church, just like people were unhappy with the corruption that exists now. If Luther was just talking about indulgences, he would have gotten a lot of amens for them, the Church at the time was widely criticized for her corruptions.

But the issue many said was. Okay there are corruptions “but what about the official teaching is that True.” The reason people said what about the official teaching was because well Jesus himself said there would be corruption in the Church. He himself warned that there would be wheat and tares. Hey in his own 12 apostles, one apostle was a traitor, and stole money to boot! If this happened when Jesus was there, how much more will this be happening now… So there being corruption is not a reason to depart.

Most theologians will tell you that the real issue was not justification by faith alone. According to Luther and to theologicans the real issue was the bondage of the will (free will). The point I want to make to you was that a lot of Catholics who hated the corruption did not agree with Luther’s teaching. The Eastern Orthodox when presented with it, did not agree with the teaching either. They considered like we did this doctrine new and opposed to the Traditional teaching of the Christian Church. Catholics did defend their views on the basis of Scripture. It’s just Luther and the Protestants were determined that his interpertations were correct.

Luther started his own church, based on his view on Scripture. Calvin (since he didn’t agree with Luther) started his own Church based on his view of Scripture. Zwingli also started his own church, based on his view of Scripture (or was Zwingli with Luther) The Anabaptists then started their own church based on their interpertation of Scripture. And this has continued on and on in Protesantism. So we have now all these competiting denominations.

Catholics in the other hand took the different path. What we decided was that while the abuses needed to be reformed. We should stick with the beliefs doctrine that had been based down. With a reformed church and new orders like the Jesuits. What happened was a great revival for Catholicism. While Protestantism wasn’t really into missions, Jesuits like St Francis of Xavier went out and started evangelizing all over the world.

The thing is that Luther and the reformers tried to build their own “purified Church” but is your churches really any more pure than ours, has your Churches in the last years accomplished the same feats as ours has… You have just the same sin problems we have.

I want to remind you of Scripture in the Old Testament. Remember when Korah decided that he wanted to be a Priest, what God did? Or remember when the ten tribes of Israel broke away from Judah. There reasons for breaking away where they were being very poorly treated by Soloman and his son promised to treat them worse. However, as a result of their rebellion, they ended up being unfaithful to God. It is interesting to note that the Book of Jude reminds us of those who opposed Moses. And Peter says that in the last days people will have no respect for authority. To say “I’m going to build a Church, and it will be greater than the one Jesus started” is very scary stuff. I think thats the difference. Catholicism in reality is not founded on men’s interpertations. It was started by Christ, and the apostles and their teachings. We just want to do our abosolute best to preserve the faith the Apostles gave us.

 

[Church_Militant]

SolaChristo:

Would anyone fault an abused wife to leave the home of an overbearing husband who was unwilling to change?

God Himself would…
What does the Lord Himself say about marriage and divorce in His word?
Mark 10:11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:31 And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. 32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

I don’t see anything I all that that excuses the reasons that you have offered. It was an immoral divorce…

The faithful Christian obediently remains and prays and trusts God to help and works from within the marriage to make it work.
It’s pretty simple really.

 

[SolaChristo]

Church Militant:

God Himself would…
What does the Lord Himself say about marriage and divorce in His word?
Mark 10:11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:31 And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. 32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

I don’t see anything I all that that excuses the reasons that you have offered. It was an immoral divorce…

The faithful Christian obediently remains and prays and trusts God to help and works from within the marriage to make it work.
It’s pretty simple really.

Notice I didnt say divorce I said to leave the home of…
But the situation prior to the reformation was of an overbearing, abusive husband that had no intention/desire/willingness to change. Then blaming the wife for leaving.

 

[Thal59]

Luther did NOT consider the church to be overbearing and abusive, at least not in the sense of violent abuse. Luther was anxious for what he considered, above all, a reform of indulgences which he apparently look at as a money scheme.

When you infer that the church had no intention/desire/willingness to change you are guessing out of thin air. I find it almost impossible to believe that Luther was the only person in the church at the time that wanted reform.

When you state that the church had no intention/desire/willingness to change, you are inferring that had it not been for Luther, it never would have changed or reformed itself. This is the same as saying that Jesus, the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit were impotent to purify their church. If Luther, and those who sympathised with him, had been a bit more long-suffering and had placed their faith in the Lord that he would rescue the church without schism, then all of the rebellion, suffering, death, disunity caused by the reformation would never have happened.

Bekalc pointed out the biblical historical precedence to this. 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel decided staying loyal to God under an “abusive and overbearing” Reboem was not to their liking so they packed up and decided to worship, not the way God intended, but the way the wanted to. Ah, freedom of religion!!! What did they do?

They set up TWO golden calves and worshipped on Mt. Gerahzim in Samaria. What did God do? He gave them over to the Assyrian King who took them off into captivity never to be heard from again.

Never, in scripture nor in Jewish or Christian history, is there an instance of God toleranting schism.

Thal59

 

[Church_Militant]

SolaChristo:

Notice I didnt say divorce I said to leave the home of…
But the situation prior to the reformation was of an overbearing, abusive husband that had no intention/desire/willingness to change. Then blaming the wife for leaving.

Bunk! But that’s a really slick hair split you did there…

 

[RyanL]

SolaChristo,

Are you denying that the “Reformers” divorced themselves (and their followers) from the Catholic Church? Or are you claiming that you’re still married, just not living with us?

God Bless,
RyanL