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

[O.S.Luke]

Please don’t use this kind of filthy language with our Catholic brethren. There is not one “Protestant” book that would condone it.

Filthy? Please. Ever read Ezekiel? Particularly the 23rd chapter? Gimme a break.

How about “straw.”

 

[Protestant101]

Filthy? Please. Ever read Ezekiel? Particularly the 23rd chapter? Gimme a break.

How about “straw.”

Help yourself

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

What a load of çrap - and you know it. How dishonest and bigoted.

He didn’t say that Christianity was wrong for 1500 years. He said that there were some corrupt practices. Luther made mistakes, so did some bishops and cardinals of the day in Saxony.

Spreading untruths about fellow Christians, even if we are separated brothers and sisters, is still spreading untruths. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Don’t you know anything else beside name calling and judging others? Fact is you can’t face the truth. Luther came in and did EXACTLY that. Better read your Protestant history…if there is any.

 

[Protestant101]

Luther came in and did EXACTLY that. Better read your Protestant history…if there is any.

IMHO, trying to point out faults/mistakes about Luther, is akin to Protestants trying to point out similar things about various Popes. Do I need to remind you what we Protestants are told when we try to do such things to a given Pope to “prove” you belong to the “wrong” Church? Luther atleast, was willing to concede his general opinions about individual Popes, admitting that some could be counted as genuine Christians, and as following the Lord. Protestants today who know their Bibles should have a similar attitude.

Most of the so-called “history” sources we see quoted here are activist and philosophical in nature - it makes one wonder what BOTH SIDES that I am reading here are trying to cover up.

You will never come close to disproving Protestants or the Reformation on the basis of denigrating one man. Neither will we by doing it to one Pope. There are too many Christ-centered people in both our respective denominations to just generalize, based upon the perceived faults of one or two people. “Catholic history” does not reflect this very well; accounts I have read in This Rock, and The Catholic Encyclopedia and other sources are absolutely wild compared to the truth of the matter.

 

[PJM]

=O.S. Luke;5093227]What a load of çrap - and you know it. How dishonest and bigoted.

He didn’t say that Christianity was wrong for 1500 years. He said that there were some corrupt practices. Luther made mistakes, so did some bishops and cardinals of the day in Saxony.

Spreading untruths about fellow Christians, even if we are separated brothers and sisters, is still spreading untruths. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

So “Chrsitianity was so wrong” that he was willing to abandon his God, risk his salvation, decline the Seven Sacraments, rewrite the bible according to “Luther”. And this was a “good thing”?

What am I missing here dear friend?

Oh that’s right, “the end DOES justify the means!”:nope::tsktsk:

 

[O.S.Luke]

So “Chrsitianity was so wrong” that he was willing to abandon his God, risk his salvation, decline the Seven Sacraments, rewrite the bible according to “Luther”. And this was a “good thing”?

What am I missing here dear friend?

Oh that’s right, “the end DOES justify the means!”:nope::tsktsk:

Does ANYBODY read here? I didn’t say, nor did Luther say, that X’ianity was wrong. There were corrupt practices in the Church.

I used to think that only my Protestant friends could be so bigoted, usually about Catholics. I am beginning to think that my defense of CAtholics all these years was wasted . Here, it seem that not only can Catholics defend themselves, they can do it with as much venom and half-truths as ignorant Protestants.

Fire and flame away. Peace be with you.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

IMHO, trying to point out faults/mistakes about Luther, is akin to Protestants trying to point out similar things about various Popes.

It is strange but for me Luther is, ironically, one of my greatest allies with the type of people that I deal with. Since I deal predominately with strict fundamentalists (wife’s side of the family) who deny the real presence, baptismal regeneration, any mention of Mary and also affirm OSAS, all while at the same time consider Luther a “glorious reformer” it is always great to see the shock it causes when they find out just how, “Catholic” their “glorious reformer” actually was.

God bless

 

[Protestant101]

It is strange but for me Luther is, ironically, one of my greatest allies with the type of people that I deal with. Since I deal predominately with strict fundamentalists (wife’s side of the family) who deny the real presence, baptismal regeneration, any mention of Mary and also affirm OSAS, all while at the same time consider Luther a “glorious reformer” it is always great to see the shock it causes when they find out just how, “Catholic” their “glorious reformer” actually was.

God bless

Yes, it’s kind of funny to watch people when they find out something that is true, and that they don’t like. But you need to remember, a true Protestant does not follow Luther, nor do they believe that he was the beginning of the so called Reformation. Trying to “prove” that he still held some catholic belief, or that he had some particular fault proves absolutely nothing, except that he was human. The History Of Luther is so often maligned by your Church, I don’t know how you can believe half of what your church writes about him.

The Reformation, so called, of the 13th to 16th century or so was a revival of truths established by God in Eden, it was a continuation of what God has been doing in human history, as recorded in His Word. Contrary to what Catholicism teaches; Luther was a devout Christian who set a number of examples that we would all do well to pay more attention to. He did this within the context of what history has dubbed The Reformation; but there were many others involved alongside him. The Holy Spirit was obviously speaking to men the same truths, men in different lands, at different times, with no chance of collaboration, were all breaking out of the bondage of the Catholic politico-religious grip, and led by the Holy Spirit to defy the spiritualistic doctrines being espoused by most churches then. The only explanation is that the Reformation was an act of God.

 

[PJM]

=O.S. Luke;5096325]Does ANYBODY read here? I didn’t say, nor did Luther say, that X’ianity was wrong. There were corrupt practices in the Church.

I used to think that only my Protestant friends could be so bigoted, usually about Catholics. I am beginning to think that my defense of CAtholics all these years was wasted . Here, it seem that not only can Catholics defend themselves, they can do it with as much venom and half-truths as ignorant Protestants.

Fire and flame away. Peace be with you.

An EXCELLENT Christan response:tiphat::clapping:

But friend MUST we not respond in truth? The RCC is under attack! And might not it be “that sometimes the truth is going to hurt?”

I certainly intended no lack of charity.

Indeed there were corupt pactices, PRACTICES NOT DOGMA and NOT DOCTRINE but what did Martin do? He didn’t (directly) correct practices, but they were changed by what he brought to light at a later date thank you ML!

What Luther did change was the bible, doctrine and dogmas of the RCC! Is this not fact and truth friend?

Love and prayers,

 

[guanophore]

This is not correct. The Reformation/The Reformers were led of God to CONTINUE something that God had already begun in human history long before!

I think they were sincere in their belief that this is what they were doing. I think they had valid complaints and accruate observations about corruption.

 

[guanophore]

The entire Catholic perspective surrounding Peter’s confession and what Jesus said regarding the rock upon which he will build his church is very suspect.

Really? Where did you read that in your Bible?

Do you think the Apostles did not understand what Jesus said? And if not, do you think Jesus was incapable of making them understand?

First off, Jesus never implies anything about his Church being in Rome. It doesn’t exist.

Acts 23:11
11 The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.”

Who was this “non-existent” Lord that was speaking to Paul?

Rom 1:7-11
7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.

How is it, do you suppose, that the Church was flourishing in Rome before Paul came there? How is it that the faith of the believers in Rome was “proclaimed in all the world”?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, CAS64. But the reasone that Rome became a pillar and foundation of the truth is because of the primacy of doctrine taught there by the Apostles Peter and Paul, and that Peter ordained his successor there.

Secondly, when Jesus refers to the rock, Catholics seem to forget that previously in Scripture he is referred to as the cornerstone which the builders rejected. The unbroken succession which Catholics hang their hat on is something of their own demise. Jesus never mentioned one denomination, he talked about his Church.

No, we do not forget this. We understand that Peter was grafted into Christ. Peter’s “rockness” has been created by God’s grace. Peter being made into a foundation stone does not make Jesus less of a Rock, or the statement that Peter made any less a Rock of our faith. However, whenever God changes the name of a person (like from Simon to Cephas (Rock) He is giving that person a new identity.

I am behind on the thread, so I apologize to all if this is old news.

 

[guanophore]

Please don’t use this kind of filthy language with our Catholic brethren. There is not one “Protestant” book that would condone it.

While I do agree with the statement (it was a load of pungent organic matter), I also agree with you that we need to upgrade our language and our attitudes. I commend you for encouraging charity and civility on CAF.

 

[guanophore]

Dear friends, if our faith is in Jesus, then we are all Peter types.
Tell me, does not God give us the power to forgive?

I would say that He gives us the grace to forgive one another.

Our giving forgiveness is supported by heaven, as in, what we bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

For ourselves as individuals, this is the case.

Upon this kind of faith, the kind that forgives is where Jesus has built His church on.

Are ye not the temple of the Holy Spirit?

By temple of the Holy Spirit meaning, the the God of heaven residing in it?

If God resides in you as His temple, are you not the church upon which faith is built upon?

To the extent that each one unifies his personal temple with the foundation built upon the Apostles and prophets then yes, I would say it is the same faith.

We (You) have direct access to God via Jesus and you are a royal priest hood offering spiritual sacrifices unto God.

Each of us has the responsibility to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice to God. We have access to the throne of grace. God has also provided channels through which He intends His grace to flow.

1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Blessings, AJ

This priesthood of all believes is not separated from the ministerial priesthood established by Christ.

 

[Sunflower15]

Was this a serious or rhetorical question, or just another chance to remind Protestants how wrong they are?

Yep…It seems like a rhetorical question and self-answer session…and, yes, with the intent of reminding others of their errors…

“highly” effective, wouldn’t you say?

Now, in an attempt at taking the question seriously for it could be an interesting riddle of sorts, since God is in charge and we have a promise that Hell itself could not stand against…obviously it would follow that the Reformation [which is a historical fact] can’t come from the “underworld” so to speak…it follows logically, doesn’t it?

In my humble opinion, highly fallible, I should say that I really don’t know! Or can’t possibly know God’s PLAN! And, that I highly distrust anyone who thinks THEY know God’s Plan!

And, that I DO believe that God probably intended for these reformers to reform the Church from within, rather than for a domino effect of divisions, sub-divisions & exponential further divisions to keep taking place.

Reformers and their subsequent churches ARE part of the Church that Jesus founded…that’s why their Baptism is acknowledged by the Catholic Church as induction to membership of Jesus’ Church!
Is it not?

What Catholics say is that they are NOT “in communion with” or they lack the “fullness of the faith” handed down by Jesus, because simply they refuse it…not because they aren’t entitled to it as full bona fide members of the ONE Church Jesus built via Peter [keys and all].

Jesus because one doesn’t consider oneself Catholic, doesn’t mean one isn’t from the point of view of God…

I wonder if God simply sees Protestants/Reformers as Catholics that don’t take the Sacraments or many of the graces available to them!

Just a thought…I don’t mean to insult anyone…just that from God’s point of view we are ALL just ONE Church…and we get inducted via Baptism…[of *water, of blood, or of desire, according to Catholic teachings]

HAPPY EASTER TO ALL!!!
HE DIED & RESURRECTED FOR EVERYONE!!!

 

[guanophore]

So “Chrsitianity was so wrong” that he was willing to abandon his God, risk his salvation, decline the Seven Sacraments, rewrite the bible according to “Luther”. And this was a “good thing”?

What am I missing here dear friend?

Oh that’s right, “the end DOES justify the means!”:nope::tsktsk:

You are missing the truth, PJM. Luther did not abandon his God. He wasn’t even trying to start a new church. He was speaking out against corruption. He didn not "decline the sacraments’, and in fact believed that the ones he cathected were valid. He prayed his rosary every day, and was very devoted to the Traditions of the Church and to Mary, help of Christians.

It is true that he fiddled with the canon of scripture, a grievious error. But the reason that there is so much truth still to be found in Protestantism today is because Luther held on to most of it. Granted, the crucial parts that got him excommunicated were pivotal, but making up things about him that are not true only obfusticates real history.

 

[look3467]

To the extent that each one unifies his personal temple with the foundation built upon the Apostles and prophets then yes, I would say it is the same faith.

guanophore

We mostly agree except for this point, which by the way is by me given for you to exercise your belief in how you best see it, that the foundation is not the church, the Apostles but Christ Himself.

It is His righteousness (meaning God’s) that saves my soul, not the church or the Apostles, the Pope and or priests.

My main concern with anybody’s beliefs here is that they exercise it with one true ingredient, and that being the love of God which, in any way they best see fit.

It is the offering of it that God wants and not under duress.

Children must have perimeters, but adults are on their own, and in where the most good can be achieved, that is if Godly principles are exercised.

I stand on Christ alone primarily, then I honor all whom Christ died for.

That is why I can not judge another mans religion, only Judge that mans work, if it is from God, I will know it.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

The dividing of darkness is what brings things to light!
The evening and the morning makes the day.
First darkness was upon the face of the earth, then God brought in the light.
Out of chaos and confusion, something beautiful was created.

Division then can be said, breeds life.

Blessings, AJ

 

[guanophore]

Does ANYBODY read here? I didn’t say, nor did Luther say, that X’ianity was wrong. There were corrupt practices in the Church.

I used to think that only my Protestant friends could be so bigoted, usually about Catholics. I am beginning to think that my defense of CAtholics all these years was wasted . Here, it seem that not only can Catholics defend themselves, they can do it with as much venom and half-truths as ignorant Protestants.

Fire and flame away. Peace be with you.

Sadly, bigotry is not denominational.

 

[Sunflower15]

Does ANYBODY read here? I didn’t say, nor did Luther say, that X’ianity was wrong. There were corrupt practices in the Church.

I used to think that only my Protestant friends could be so bigoted, usually about Catholics. I am beginning to think that my defense of CAtholics all these years was wasted . Here, it seem that not only can Catholics defend themselves, they can do it with as much venom and half-truths as ignorant Protestants.

Fire and flame away. Peace be with you.

 

[PJM]

=guanophore;5098267]I think they were sincere in their belief that this is what they were doing. I think they had valid complaints and accruate observations about corruption.

Indeed this is true.

However as I have stated, in his 95 Thesis, the issues were PRACTICE, not dogma or doctrine.

We know that Christ built “His Church” on “rock” because Jesus Himself told us so.

The changes Luther made far exceeded modifying what we all agree was improper behavior.

The Latin Vulgate bible that ML existed for about 1,200 years. Years of incredible growth. (Yes some of it forced), nevertheless, extrodinary growth, because it was based on The Truth,

ML changed the bible, and taught and spread a different religion, different theology and philosophy than what were in the RCC.

That friend cannot be God inspired! (Mt. 16:19)

No what ever the motive (s) they were not sufficient grounds to start a “new church, a new religion” that in some teachings are actually antibiblical. OSAS, Justification Alone, rejection of many of the sacraments are a few examples.

Love and prayers,