Was the Protestant Reformation an act of God or an Act of men?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Reformation was an attempt from Luther to try and reform the Catholic church. He failed. If he was doing God’s work he wouldn’t of failed because God doesn’t fail. Imagine a man (and a Catholic monk at that) who tries to come in and say that for the first 1500 years, Christianity was wrong…give me a break…🤷
Hmmm If your church was “doing God’s work” we’d all be in heaven then?
 
There’s a lot to do today, but I didn’t want you to think I wasn’t paying attention to your response.

In short, consubstantiation and transubstantiation are concepts given to us from philosophy and metaphysics. Luther (as well as most of the Eastern Church) thought this was more explanation than description, and mysteries such as sacraments defied explanation. Luther did not embrace impanation - which is something that consubstantiation (as originally defined by Duns Scotus in the 1200’s) and transubstantiation DID embrace.

Luther said thus (parentheticals mine):

I hope that helps. A happy Easter to you and yours.Christos Anesti! Alithos Anesti!

O+
I knew there was a something going on, consubstantiation is being defined in two different manners - in one way it is explained as the bread and body of Christ co-existing along-side each other, and the other is:

“. . . Consubstantiation, as the word indicates, means a combination of two substances in such a way that by being mixed together they are fused into one substance or mass, consisting of different ingredients.”

Which is the correct view?

Also, I found this on Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod:

First of all, there are a couple of misimpressions in your statement. We do not usually describe our belief as “consubstantiation” though we do believe we receive the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine, which is what consubstantiation literally means. The reason we do not favor the term “consubstantiation” is that the term is sometimes understood to mean a physical mixture of the bread and wine and the body and blood like raisin bread or a mixed drink. The presence of the body and blood, though real, is supernatural, not merely a physical mixture. We cannot see, taste, or smell the body and blood. Also nothing in Scripture suggests that we digest Christ’s body and blood so that it courses through our veins or becomes part of our flesh as you suggest.

wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuItem_itemID=6600&cuTopic_topicID=60

My question to Lutherans is this: do you believe that the presence of Christ (body and blood) still remains in the bread/host after the mass?
 
this question is too easy … there is no god so it could have only been an act of men (like all religion).
 
this question is too easy … there is no god so it could have only been an act of men (like all religion).
Hey, for someone who doesn’t believe in God why did you go to an Easter service at an Episcopal Church? God bless.
 
Hey, for someone who doesn’t believe in God why did you go to an Easter service at an Episcopal Church? God bless.
good question. This girl dragged me there (we both had a great night on the town the evening prior & although she’s not real religious either I guess she felt the need to do what Americans do on Easter … go to church). Again, it was very cool. Excellent Celtic music, good people, nice smelling incense, etc.

Still doesn’t compel me to believe in things I know never happened … but all the same it was enjoyable (but not as much as the murder mystery dinner we attended later that day, which was really fun). I also like choir music and Gregorian chants 🙂
 
good question. This girl dragged me there (we both had a great night on the town the evening prior & although she’s not real religious either I guess she felt the need to do what Americans do on Easter … go to church). Again, it was very cool. Excellent Celtic music, good people, nice smelling incense, etc.

Still doesn’t compel me to believe in things I know never happened … but all the same it was enjoyable (but not as much as the murder mystery dinner we attended later that day, which was really fun). I also like choir music and Gregorian chants 🙂
How does someone drag you to a church, didn’t you protest you were too rational for the like? I also like choir music and Gregorian chants, especially the words.

P.S. What did you think of the rest of the service (like the homily), you did not go to receive communion, did you?
 
There are many instances where God had moved mankind to do things which many of us would have found condemnation.

Was there a reason why Samson picked a Philistine women?

Truly, we would have sided with his parents: Jdg 14:2 And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife.
Jdg 14:3 Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.
Jdg 14:4 But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.
Jdg 14:5 Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared against him.

Was not Josephs story the same way? Gen 45:4 And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt.
Gen 45:5 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.

Here we have but two of many instances where God does things not according to what we think they should be but rather different.

In both cases, God made it seem like it was mans evil doings that caused what we seen as evil, but instead uses it for good.

Martin Luther by me was no exception. For the church termed him evil while God used him for good.

Please understand that God works in mysterious ways, and like Samson’s parents, having raised him by strict adherence to their beliefs, found only to see him stray.

So what was the good that come about from the reformation? I mean the Catholic Church still stands.

That question is where the answer lies, for God knows His business.

Blessings, AJ
 
So what was the good that come about from the reformation?
  • The council of Trent
  • The abuse of indulgences was dealt with
  • The study of the reformation perked my curiosity to learn more about Christianity which led to my conversion in college.
Just to name three good things. I am sure there are more, but I am tired.

Despite all the good, I grieve and am sadden by the split.

God bless
 
How does someone drag you to a church, didn’t you protest you were too rational for the like? I also like choir music and Gregorian chants, especially the words.

P.S. What did you think of the rest of the service (like the homily), you did not go to receive communion, did you?
she’s really hot … and I guess she didn’t really have to physically drag me. You know I’m not a militant church hater or anything like that (you know one of those atheists who just rebel for the sake of rebellion & treat atheism like a religion … oxymoron I know, but maybe you know the type).

What is a church, it’s a room with a few dozen or more people listening to ancient stories. If there’s cool music in the background … then what’s wrong with going once in a while to accompany a friend or family member?

Atheism is not a religion by definition. It is an utter lack of religion and lack of belief in anything that cannot be proven by empirical evidence (this is my definition anyway). This means I don’t have any feelings of zealotry that compel me to hate or feel repulsion. In other words if I’m visiting family or friends and they ask me to accompany them to church I’m not going to protest and refuse to go on some sort of conscientious grounds.

It’s one thing is you’re Muslim and you think it’s a sin to attend a Christian service, but it’s another if you’re an atheist and you don’t believe in an invisible god who will one day judge you and decide your fate. It’s not a sin for me to attend a church (whatever sort of church) because I don’t acknowledge the term sin & it doesn’t have any meaning or value to me. Only the secular law holds any tangible value to me, though I think religion is somewhat interesting from a historical perspective (but that’s another story I guess).
 
I have been off the forum for a couple of weeks, which is why I haven’t responded to this thread till now. It is of great interest to me, since I study the Reformation, and began doing so largely in order to answer the question posed by the OP. (In a paper I wrote for a historical methodology class in college, I mentioned my belief that the Reformation was the work of God as an example of a religious belief that might stand in tension with a strictly historical approach.)

The problem with the question is that characterizing any historical event (except a miracle, which in some respects is not really a historical event at all, since escapes the parameters of strictly historical methodology) as an act of God raises what I believe to be insoluble theological and philosophical questions. Isn’t God at work in all history? Aren’t all historical acts by definition human acts? I don’t know what other parameters to set for the study of history. If history doesn’t study the human, I don’t know how to be a historian.

In other words, a historical event is by definition a human act, but also (from a theistic point of view, philosophically and theologically) by definition part of God’s providential order. I would subscribe to the classical patristic/Thomist view that every good thing (i.e., every real thing) is caused by God, while every evil (i.e., every defect afflicting God’s good creation) is permitted by God. That would mean that the question "is the Reformation an act of God’ boils down to the question “was the Reformation good”? In that case, why not just use that language? Furthermore, it stands to reason that the Reformation had some good aspects (some Catholics, for instance, would suggest that the Protestant Reformation helped lead to the Council of Trent and other official Catholic reforms, which they regard as a good thing–I’m not so sure about that, but that’s another issue). It also stands to reason that some things done by Protestants in the Reformation were bad–no Protestants would deny this.

So I don’t see that the question holds together. The question derives from unfortunate Protestant triumphalist rhetoric, which I was taught growing up (hence my reference to this language in my undergraduate paper), but which really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

In the same class for which I wrote the aforementioned paper, I read for the first time C. S. Lewis’s marvelous essay on “Historicism.” I agree with what Lewis said there, and would like to hear from other posters who have read this essay. I don’t think that God’s ways in history can be discerned directly in the way that the OP implies.

Edwin
You remind me that it has been a long while indeed since I read CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS. I looked over it. I too find “Historicism” compelling. Though I found it odd he declined to convict scientism of the parallel error, of also believing one can, by that discipline, in Chesterton’s phrase, get around to the front of the world, and see its true face.

GKC
 
she’s really hot … and I guess she didn’t really have to physically drag me. You know I’m not a militant church hater or anything like that (you know one of those atheists who just rebel for the sake of rebellion & treat atheism like a religion … oxymoron I know, but maybe you know the type).

What is a church, it’s a room with a few dozen or more people listening to ancient stories. If there’s cool music in the background … then what’s wrong with going once in a while to accompany a friend or family member?

Atheism is not a religion by definition. It is an utter lack of religion and lack of belief in anything that cannot be proven by empirical evidence (this is my definition anyway). This means I don’t have any feelings of zealotry that compel me to hate or feel repulsion. In other words if I’m visiting family or friends and they ask me to accompany them to church I’m not going to protest and refuse to go on some sort of conscientious grounds.

It’s one thing is you’re Muslim and you think it’s a sin to attend a Christian service, but it’s another if you’re an atheist and you don’t believe in an invisible god who will one day judge you and decide your fate. It’s not a sin for me to attend a church (whatever sort of church) because I don’t acknowledge the term sin & it doesn’t have any meaning or value to me. Only the secular law holds any tangible value to me, though I think religion is somewhat interesting from a historical perspective (but that’s another story I guess).
Do you believe John Calvin had the best interpretation of scriptures because he did not believe in free will like Darwinian evolutionists (as understood by the likes of Dawkins) believe?

P.S. How old are you?
 
“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” (II Timothy iv, 3–4)
Yes. And of such men is the Reformation born. However, they do not realize this, and believe that they have preserved the purity and essence of God’s word.
 
  • The council of Trent
  • The abuse of indulgences was dealt with
  • The study of the reformation perked my curiosity to learn more about Christianity which led to my conversion in college.
Just to name three good things. I am sure there are more, but I am tired.

Despite all the good, I grieve and am sadden by the split.

God bless
Yes, no one really likes splitting up, but there is many times good reasons for it.

I believe “Christianity” has grown tremendously in quantity as well as quality.

Though at times, there is a tendency to fall asleep and God has to wake us up.

Blessings, AJ
 
=Protestant101;5067734] You are really behind the times. Catholicism; especially in North America has become a house divided, on abortion, and other issues. **The ** only ** difference is Catholics won’t call the differences “denominations.” ** They use other fancy words and terminology.
As highlighted I tend to agree with you on this one point. But that is not “the only difference.”

The Catholic Church in America (what some of refer to as the American catholic? Church) holds many different views, moral, political and biblical than us Roman Catholics living here in America.
I would like just one Catholic to tell me specifically what they think these keys are that were given to their church. I would be willing to bet that the OP doesn’t even know and will have to look it up.
Allow me to at least try to respond to your challenge. (Sorry, I’m not the OP and I did not have to look it up.) And might I share that this is “😃 Catholic 101”

In order to do so I must attempt to answer for you the W’s, who, what, where and why?

Who? Jesus the Christ (Mt. 16:16) The Son of God. All Knowing - all Wise - all everything Good. A key element of Gods Perfect Goodness is that God is and has to be “All-Fair and All Just.” Otherwise He would not be God.

So from this we are able to understand that when God teaches He does so with complete understanding of what it is He is teaching, and does so in a manner those whom He chooses to enlighten WILL UNDERSTAND His message. (Mt. 11:25-26)

**The words used by Jesus are carefully selected to insure proper understanding. **

What? Pulling out ONLY the words “Key’s (plural as in more than one) to the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Lk.26:1-3) , is like offering one a sandwich without bread. It has value, but is clearly incomplete.

This is part of the discourse in which Christ makes clear in unambiguous language that He intends to: 1. Form His Church (singular use of “I” and “you” and “church.” 2. That it is to be only ONE church.** 3.** That Peter is given the access (gate keys) to heaven. 4. Peter (and Peter alone) is given all of the power and authority to govern with COMPLETE autonomous authority, answering ONLY to God Himself!

We can know this by the choice of words selected by Christ. To **“bind” and to “loose” **were common, rabbinical, legally binding at Law terms for exactly that! Complete, and free governance. Jesus, Peter and all that heard knew exactly what Jesus meant! Exactly what Jesus meant!

WHERE? Mt. 16:13: “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” “

The timing and the location were of great significance to the message, the purpose and the mission of what Jesus was in the process of setting up and doing. Jesus was aware of when and how soon He would be put to death.

Caesarea Philippi is in the hill country of Judea. It was a by their standards, a large town. It was also the site of the areas Major Pagan Temple. Thus Jesus ask, “ who do people say that I am.” Not satisfied with the response Jesus then “ask His deciples (plural.) PETER answers, (Mt. 16: 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

This is significant, for the mandate that follows is directly out of the mouth of God! And all there were aware of this fact.

The location Jesus chooses is a clear indication of the Mission of His Church, and Peter and the Apostles. “Overcome, do away with pagan worship.” Jesus not only gives His Church this Mission, He gives His Church all of the tools and authority needed to accomplish it!

Why?
Why indeed! Jesus knew from the moment of his Conception in the Virgin womb of His Mother, what Gods plan (His Plan) was. He knew that he would suffer and die that He would rise from the Dead, and be our Redeemer. He further knew that (Mt. 22:14 “14 For many are called, but few are chosen." The word “chosen, in this context means “chosen BY US!” In other words, many will deny, and many will die because of unbelief, because of the personal choices we make.

Mk. 10: “35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him, and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;”

Jesus clearly knew what lie in store for His Deciples and the persecution His Church, and His Deciples, would have to face. This is precisely why the mandate, why the authority, why the church, why they too would die professing that Christ is Lord! That Jesus remains present “ Really Present,” why Jesus instituted the Seven Sacraments. All this so that His Church would have the power and the authority, the tools and the grace, to become the “Narrow Gate” of Christ plan for our Salvation. (Mt. 7: 13.)

The “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven” is a literal statement of FACT!

This is what Jesus said, did, intended and has accomplished. It’s what the Word of God clearly says and clearly means. Amen!


And friend, it’s not “what we think,” it’s what is The Truth as taught by Jesus Himself. Amen! My prayerful hope is that I have been specific and clear enough for you?
 
Do you believe John Calvin had the best interpretation of scriptures because he did not believe in free will like Darwinian evolutionists (as understood by the likes of Dawkins) believe?
Calvin did believe in free will, but people often get his theology wrong. He simply never offered a philosophical explanation for the tension between god’s sovereignty and human free will / moral accountability (as presented in scripture). He also rejected the idea of foreseen faith as the predicator for predestination (acknowledging the concept that men are not saved because of anything about them i.e. works, effort, desire, etc.).

So yes, Calvin did the best job of explaining scripture … it’s just too bad it’s all nonsense & fantasy.
 
Calvin did believe in free will, but people often get his theology wrong. He simply never offered a philosophical explanation for the tension between god’s sovereignty and human free will / moral accountability (as presented in scripture). He also rejected the idea of foreseen faith as the predicator for predestination (acknowledging the concept that men are not saved because of anything about them i.e. works, effort, desire, etc.).

So yes, Calvin did the best job of explaining scripture
The word “so” is not justified. Your previous paragraph does not constitute support for the claim that “Calvin did the best job of explaining scripture.” You will have to do a lot more work than that if you want to be taken seriously. (Given your previous posts, I’m not sure you do want to be taken seriously. Certainly I have yet to see any reason to take you seriously.)

Indeed, to make claims about which theologian of a tradition to which you do not belong is the “best” interpreter of that tradition’s sacred texts is a rather foolhardy thing to do. I certainly would not go around making statements about which Islamic theologian had interpreted the Qur’an best, for instance.

Back to your actual claim about Calvin above: it’s true that he was willing to use the phrase “free will,” though he didn’t see a lot of point in doing so. And it’s true that he wasn’t interested in a philosophical account of free will, making it hard to peg him as a “compatibilist” in modern philosophical terminology. But if you look at his account of providence in Book 1 of the Institutes, he is pretty clearly a compatibilist when it comes to divine providence. Whether he’s a compatibilist with regard to second causes (in the way that Jonathan Edwards was, for instance) is less clear to me. I don’t think it was a question Calvin worried about–created causes don’t seem to have been very important to him, which from my perspective is one of the serious weaknesses in his theology (compared to Aquinas or even Edwards).

Edwin
 
Yes, no one really likes splitting up
I don’t believe this. Splitting up can be immensely freeing and empowering–generally in not a very good or healthy way, in my opinion.
but there is many times good reasons for it.
I question this. I certainly don’t think the effects of the Reformation support your claim. Of course, as a Protestant I don’t necessarily see the Council of Trent as a good thing.

Edwin
 
Yes, it was an act of a horny monk who was brainwashed into joining the wealthy classes of Germany…they wanted the RCC lands and jewels,art etc…so they worked on Martin and convinced him that he was chosen to start a new national church…one that was pure german…also of course that we dont need no stinking numbers…changed to statues etc…and so lo and behold when the former parishioners returned to the once heavily bedeck church with statues,paintings,gold and silver chalices they found an empty barn…being told that all that Italian stuff was shipped back to Rome…yeh sure,and so ,as today in america and around the world…the peasants were controlled by the wealthy ruling class…in a few short years when thousands of peasants revolted against these spoiled rich brats,some 30,000 were slaughtered in the name of tolerance…sound familiar?..and Luther said…“good” strangely this leading to national bigoted churchs led eventually to the founding of the United States of America…the more intelligent ones discovered its not much fun to live in a country which forces you to worship only the official church…(we call that being PC) and so they came here to this wilderness inhabited by savages who worshipped the sun ,moon etc and also who practiced slavery…yes we see it all happening before our eyes this moment…watch and see what happens to the thousands of Christians protesting confiscatory taxation domani…the smears…the usual words of ‘hate’ and ‘intolerance’ towards those of us who refuse to be slaves of an all-demon state…well gotta go…wheres my pitchfork…go back to sleep couch potatoes while others do the fighting for ya…as the coach said to his team in the movie Rudy…'no one,NO ONE, comes into our house and pushes us around!"
 
The longer I live the more I think it was an act of God to point to the True church. One that did not fall apart under all its “developed” doctrines that caused the spirit to leave, as it moved futhur and furthur away from the rigt doctorine, until it naturally fell apart under its man made inventions, culminating in the protestant reformation. While the true church poor and humble attacked on all sides withstood the passing of time keeping the faith of the Fathers, not adding, not taking away, perserving for all time the right doctrine, te true doctrine, The Orthodox Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top