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

[PJM]

My dear friends in Christ,

When I open my e-mail and read the topic question, it came to me that I missed a signifiant point in my last post.

**The Protestant was begun by men WHO THOUGHT they WERE Godly.

This a good example of thinking too much and praying too little:thumbsup:**

Love and prayers,

 

[josie_L]

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

Huhhhhh! Edwin, no comprendez!!!

 

[Protestant101]

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.

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.

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?

Thankyou for your thoughtful reply. I agree with your statement that “the keys to the kngdom of heaven is a literal fact.” I haven’t yey absorbed why you are trying to combine other things with the term “keys” here like this because many apologists on this and other forums do use the fact of the “keys” as “proof” of the origin of Catholicism, and other related dogmas.

So what are you saying? Are you saying by this post that the “keys” are the Words of Christ? That’s what it sounds like. If so; what I have been trying to find is some specific references from official Catholic writings as to exactly what these “keys” are.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

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.

I spent enough of my life studying theology (as a devout Christian) to understand the topic well enough to discuss it & hold an opinion on it.

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

To read Aquinas is like reading a commentary on Aristotlean metaphysics. Particularly with regard to his work on “causes.” IMO the work of Aquinas went far beyond what scripture states or even implies (whether literally or figuratively). There is no theological basis for some of Aquinas’ theories, however, he was skilled at filling in the gaps left by scripture with elaborate sophistic concepts.

If that’s how you define a good theologian then I suppose it’s your right. When I studied theology I took a different view. The reason why Calvin didn’t get too deeply into causes (though he did discuss it to a moderate degree) is because scripture doesn’t treat the topic consistently.

Scripture will simply state god is the cause of everything (in so many words & in various different contexts). Scripture also explains god does not tempt men (yet it also states god created the wicked for a purpose). Men like Aquinas (and many other, particularly Catholic theologians) will try to harmonize these conflicting ideas (usually by relying on the idea of prescience as a component of divine omniscience). It’s not to say that’s necessarily an invalid approach … however, it only enjoys scant scriptural support (though it does perhaps have some).

We might say (with regard to scripture) god is a passive actor when it comes to evil. He does not directly tempt men (that task is left to satan & I suppose our own inherent depravity). However, if we take the classical approach (set forth as early as Justin Martyr) we might say god has exhaustive prescience (that is he can see the future infinitely). Therefore, even before creation he foreknew the fall of man would occur (yet he was not the cause: satan, Adam, and Eve were the only actors involved in their rebellion).

So what we have is this melting pot of different ways god governs the universe. He created the wicked, knowingly, and for destruction (to show his power & the riches of his glory to the elect). Yet he is not the affirmative cause of their evil (as if that really makes sense, but that is the scriptural presentation). Therefore, god can only be called the cause of evil by omission (that is he not only let it happen, but he knew it would happen and created it anyway … therefore, as Calvin concluded, god decreed evil).

In sum, Aquinas’ metaphysics is interesting reading … yet I’d rather rely on physics to explain space, time, and the universe for me.

 

[CAS64]

Matt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus Christ, never intended there to be a Protestant Reformation, period! The Protestant reformation is telling Jesus Christ, that he had lied and the Gates of hell did prevail over it! And therefore the church BUILT on ROCK needed to be Protested, and reformed by men.

The Protestant Reformation was indeed an Act of Men and NOT an Act of God for God can not lie.

Yes, an Act of Men. When man builds something it eventually falls apart, breaks away, into thousands of pieces such as the Protestant Churchessss, have, and history proves it! And each Protestant Church having a diferent approach with one another to who is right, but all, All in agreement to disagree with the Teachings of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ! Why?

How can one prove the Protestant reformation was not an ACT of God. The Protestants prove it themselves… How so? Well, how many reformations have their been in the Protestant world, since, the first Reformation? The Answer is MANY! Too many to count. This proves the First Protestant Reformation WRONG! Let alone those that followed there after. Protestants unkowningly Protest against themselves that is why New protestant churchess are opening their Doors for the first time, it seems like a daily thing, and each believing that they hold the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus Christ only made one set of keys, did he not? And there is no room for spares keys floating around town For the Gates of hell can not prevail over it! Thus the reason for only one set of keys to the Kingdom, not thousands.

Ufamtobie

There is nobody so blind as the one who will not see. Stand outside of yourself and look at it without prejudice and with objectivity. Your Bible doesn’t say that Christ’s Church is one denomination. It also doesn’t name the church in Rome as the only true church. It is you who will not see the truth.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

There is nobody so blind as the one who will not see. Stand outside of yourself and look at it without prejudice and with objectivity. Your Bible doesn’t say that Christ’s Church is one denomination. It also doesn’t name the church in Rome as the only true church. It is you who will not see the truth.

Jesus said “one fold, one sheep, one flock”. In Revelation, they are speaking of the Catholic churches ,“To the church in Ephesus…etc…” Peter was bishop of Rome FOR 25 YEARS where he reigned then handed over his authority, given by Jesus when he told Peter to “start his church”. An unbroken link since then. Imagine…no other denomination can claim this.

 

[PJM]

=Protestant101;5079393]Thankyou for your thoughtful reply. I agree with your statement that “the keys to the kngdom of heaven is a literal fact.” I haven’t yey absorbed why you are trying to combine other things with the term “keys” here like this because many apologists on this and other forums do use the fact of the “keys” as “proof” of the origin of Catholicism, and other related dogmas.

So what are you saying? Are you saying by this post that the “keys” are the Words of Christ? That’s what it sounds like. If so; what I have been trying to find is some specific references from official Catholic writings as to exactly what these “keys” are.

Your intirely wecome
After I sent my reply it occurred to me that I could have expanded on the single point of “the keys” a bit more than I had.

I made the point of why Jesus selected *** Caesarea Philippi, *** and it was primarily because it was the “center of pagan worship for the area.” Indeed it was the location of a very large Pagan Temple.

But why did Jesus use the term “the keys?” Was there a specific reason? Would those to whom Jesus was speaking have easily picked up on what Jesus was saying and doing?

Our Blessed Lord was fond of Parables that told stories in order to make the point He was trying to make. So we can understand that whatever words Jesus selected were carefully chosen.

Have you by chance ever watched *** EWTN and the morning rosary? *** The reason I ask is that it shows various parts of Jerusalem today.

The Room of the Last Supper, Mary and Joseph house, Calvary and the like.

What first impressed me about today’s Jerusalem is that it remains a ** Walled in city."**

**Back in the time if Jesus all major cites were walled in for protection from attack. These cities actually had two real GATES, with REAL KEYS. ** A minor gate and the Main gate.

Now under independent rule, each major city also had there own king, and thus a “kingdom.” So there were many Kings and many kingdoms. A brief reading of the Old Testament list many Kings (who often merged with other kingdoms for the purpose of self-defense) because they were usually too small to be completely independent against other NATIONS, who too merged all of their kingdoms resources to do battle and gain territory.

So the Apostles and the Jewish people of that time period would have been firmilar and comfortable with the idea of a King and his Kingdom.

If we fast-forward to day before we again “back-up” to the time of Jesus’ Proclamation.

Lets look briefly at the President of say Google and the President of the United States. Do these folks unlock their domains in the morning and lock-up at night? Of course not. They have someone they truth do it.

Such was true of Kings and Kingdoms. All day to day governance was given to a person that they selected as “Prime Minister.” An example of this is Genesis 42 and Joseph, the brother sold into slavery, which is made Prime Minister of all of Egypt.

Typically a Prime Minister had complete, autonomous control of ALL day to day activities. The Prime Minister answered to NOONE except the King Himself and nobody but the King.

**This is the common understanding and the very reason for the specific reference to “Keys” and the “Kingdom.” There would have been absolutely zero doubts about what Christ was saying, doing and mandating for Peter, now the “Prime Minister” for Christ! **

This account is historically provable. Indeed Christ intended to start His (ONE) Church, and to give Peter and those “prime-ministers” (POPES) complete and autonomous control and governance of His Church.

Does it make a bit more sense now?

 

[Protestant101]

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.

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!

 

[Protestant101]

Your intirely wecome
After I sent my reply it occurred to me that I could have expanded on the single point of “the keys” a bit more than I had.

I made the point of why Jesus selected ***Caesarea Philippi, ***and it was primarily because it was the “center of pagan worship for the area.” Indeed it was the location of a very large Pagan Temple.

But why did Jesus use the term “the keys?” Was there a specific reason? Would those to whom Jesus was speaking have easily picked up on what Jesus was saying and doing?

I think I am getting the message better now. Are you saying that the “keys” are “autonomous control of the Church?” Would there be anything in official Catholic writings to say exactly what they are? I liked the analogy you made re Caesarea Philipi. Is there a definition or explanation of these “keys” in the CCC or something?

PS Do you see the “keys” of Mat 16:19 as being the same as the keys in Rev. 1:18? If so, or if not, why?

 

[CAS64]

Jesus said “one fold, one sheep, one flock”. In Revelation, they are speaking of the Catholic churches ,“To the church in Ephesus…etc…” Peter was bishop of Rome FOR 25 YEARS where he reigned then handed over his authority, given by Jesus when he told Peter to “start his church”. An unbroken link since then. Imagine…no other denomination can claim this.

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

 

[raumzeitmc2]

There is nobody so blind as the one who will not see. Stand outside of yourself and look at it without prejudice and with objectivity. Your Bible doesn’t say that Christ’s Church is one denomination.

And just how many denominations do you count in the Bible?

It doesn’t name the church in Rome as the only true church.

Ha! The Roman Church is the most highly praised of all the churches, whereas your church, whatever and wherever it is, is not even named at all!! LOL!

But read again the holy and celibate Apostle’s letter to the Catholics at Rome:

“First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of your because your faith is heralded throughout the world.” Romans 1:8

Notice here that, unlike your church, the inspired Word of God teaches that the Roman faith (not Wittenberg, not Geneva) is the universal i.e., Catholic faith of Christians!

“I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another.” Rom. 15:16

“Full of goodness,” “filled with all knowledge.”

These inspired words are tremendous words, my friend, absolutely tremendous!

And they are spoken of only with regard to the Church of Rome! No other church in the history of the world has ever been so spoken of!

And will any of the countless self-proclaimed “bible churches” dare to claim these attributes for themselves?!

I think not.

So there - game over!

LOL!!

---

“I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome.”

• Attributed to the Roman Emperor Decius (201-251).

“Then afterwards, when he Pope Cornelius] had undertaken the episcopate … by the will of God who makes priests … he intrepidly sat at Rome in the sacerdotal chair at that time when a tyrant, odious to God’s priests, was threatening things that can, and cannot be spoken, inasmuch as he would much more patiently and tolerantly hear that a rival prince was raised up against himself than that a priest of God was established at Rome.”

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 51:9

Other sources:
Christian History Magazine, Issue 27, (Vol. IX, No. 3), 1990, p. 22.
*The Climax of Rome *by Michael Grant, p. 229.

 

[guanophore]

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.

That is because those who “divide” from the house have left the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith. They have become Protestants, through they do not realize it. There is really no such thing as a “cafeteria catholic”. Those who believe they can pick and choose which teachings of Jesus they wish to accept and which they may reject have left the path of wisdom. MOst are in a state of mortal sin, and have unwittingly excommunicated themselves from the Catholic faith.

The teaching of Jesus is not subject to the “times”. On the contrary, it is the “times” that are subject to His teaching.

The Reformation was/is a continuation of what God had begun in human history, it was never just some new thing that someone came up with suddenly.

I agree about the not sudden part. We can see protest and heresy already in the book of Acts, and it has not ceased since that time. This is why Jesus gave the Apostles authority. He knew the wolves were coming.

The OP with his "internet yelling" (large colored fonts) and the tone of his comments show just how much truth there is to his anti-Protestant rhetoric.

I think you are right about that.

We can see the same sort of passion among the Apostles, and their successors.

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.

This will be a very useful exercise.

What do you think they were?

 

[PJM]

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!

Dear friend,

I can understand the necessity of your position, but no biblical evidence of it.

Do you hold that everything “man” needs to know about God is in the Bible? That is common Protestant Theology.

So please enlighten us as to the foundation of your belief.

If you find that you are unable to do so, what does that tell you about what you belief?

Love and prayers,

 

[ufamtobie]

There is nobody so blind as the one who will not see. Stand outside of yourself and look at it without prejudice and with objectivity.

Cas64, Prejudice? No! I just want you to come home to the Catholic Faith, now how can that make me prejudice?

Quite frankly it is you who is prejudice and blind and it is you who is “outside” looking into Jesus Christ Church, that he founded on ROCK. Cas64 here is a clue, Jesus was still alive when he founded the Church and any church that came 1500 years later, is not the Church Jesus Christ founded. I rest my case, Cas64! So tell me, when did your church start?

Your Bible doesn’t say that Christ’s Church is one denomination. It also doesn’t name the church in Rome as the only true church. It is you who will not see the truth.

Cas64, My Bible? First of all, apprently you don’t know that it was the earlie Church Fathers of the Catholic Church who compiled the Bible. So if you want an accurate Bible and not a diluted Bible, then I guess you need, My Bible, lol

Cas64 the Bible does not mentioned your name either, and here, you exist today. Let me tell you study the Church history ok, that should help you SEE the Truth and come back home to It.

Ufamtobie,

 

[PJM]

Your Bible doesn’t say that Christ’s Church is one denomination. It also doesn’t name the church in Rome as the only true church. It is you who will not see the truth.

**My dear friend in Christ Jesus.

Of course it does! My bible does and if you use the KJV so does yours!**

Mt. 16: 15 "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19** I will give you ** the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”/SIZE]

Please do not take the enlarged letters as yelling. I simply wish to make it easy for you to see EXACTLY what YOUR God and Ours is clearly saying!

Note the following please.

Jesus Himself is speaking directly to and only to Peter (with others listening).

NOTE the use of SINGULAR TENSE WORDS.

**“I” = Jesus
“You” = Peter (EACH time “you” is used!)
“ The Keys” = only one set of keys = only access to heaven is being granted to Peter.
“This rock” = PETER (singular)
“church” SINGULAR = One, = One Denomination! **

“The Church” did not move to Rome until after Jerusalem was destroyed for the Second Time, roughly 75 years after Jesus died. Now look at verse # 19.

The terms “bind and loose” are highly significant and important.

They were well known, often-used Legal and Binding “At Law” terms for complete, uninhibited, unrestricted total control and governance of what ever they were applied to. In this case the One True Church founded by Jesus to be governed by St. Peter and subsequent Pontiffs.

There has been a historically provable unbroken and consecutive line of Popes. I can provide specific names and dates if you wish. This unbroken line goes from St. Peter, right up to our present Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI.

Does Jesus say the power to governance is transferable? Yep, read verse 19 and my explanation of it. Really, would Jesus found His Church and expect to die with Peter? Does your church die if your pastor is called home? Of course NOT!

Love and prayers friend, what else can we calirify for you?

 

[josie_L]

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!

Well, that’s your interpetation of things. See how easy being a Protestant is.

 

[Jamison97]

I agree with ralphinal.

 

[O.S.Luke]

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…

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.

 

[Protestant101]

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.

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

 

[look3467]

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?

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

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