Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[rcwitness]

I found a quick 10 minutes here so can I ask you a quick question? You responded to Guan with the above article. How does it relate to Guan’s statement and /or the article he link3d to about Calvin? Will help me answer some of your other questions.

it’s not about Calvin, but the Reformers executing death sentences against heretics.

How about posting your source?

socrates58.blogspot.com/2014/08/reply-to-reformed-luther-apologist.html?m=1

 

[Abu]

Emjay66 #155
I would that that one positive outcome of the Reformation was the widespread opening up of Europe to new ways of thinking. And that was probably necessary for the Enlightenment to take hold and for modern science to develop.

False.

“Modern science” developed because of the Catholic Church NOT because of the so-called Enlightenment NOR the Protestant Revolt.

In Catholicism and Science, Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004) points out that:
“Alfred North Whitehead, the great philosopher and mathematician, co-author with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica, credited “medieval theology” for the rise of science. He pointed to the “insistence on the rationality of God,” which produced the belief that “the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith.”

**“To sum up: The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: Nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Moreover, because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation it ought to be possible to discover these principles. These crucial religious ideas were why the rise of science occurred in Christian Europe, not somewhere else.” [My bold].

**‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe—the so-called Dark Ages.

‘The progress achieved during the “Dark Ages” was not merely technological. Medieval Europe excelled in philosophy and science. The term “Scientific Revolution” is in many ways as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth.’

 

[Duane1966]

guanophore;13859976:

When I first read this I have to admit I was stunned because it didn’t seem like something I would expect you to say. After reading the article about Calvin I think I now know what you are reflecting back to the other poster.

It is interesting how all Christians have to concede that the way of Christ did not include violence. Really that was one of the central tenets of His teaching. It is one of the teachings we find too hard to accept so Christendom has been very adept to side step the priciple in an effort to justify the concept of Church authority and responsibility to govern the Church. It so interests me that in the article you used to point out who Calvin really was points out that the given philosophy was established by the conversion of Constantine and how he was able to tie church and state together. The Catholic Church has taken his sign as a message from God. The union of church and state that intituted practices which were and are in conflict with the teachings of Christ is unfortunate. This I believe in simple terms set the stage for corruption and gave a platform for men like Calvin centuries later.

From what I read there were people who quietly existed all through from the time of Constantine who were martyred for their own belief that did not give obedience to the state church.

You speak in generalizations. Can you give specifics to your claims about practices that were in conflict with Christ’s teachings? And how about a link to to those martyrs who weren’t Catholics?

 

[josie_L]

Hey bro,

This raises some ?'s…

Do you believe the Reformation had separation of Church and State as a goal?

Are you suggesting Christians were killed for defying the Bishop of Rome?

What Church are you referring to?

The Reformation did not usher in a separation of Church and State rather it did the opposite in that it brought the two together under a temporal ruler, i.e., Luther would not have had the sway/staying power he did were it not for Princes/Kings who converted to Lutheranism and made said religion the state religion in their country and/or principality, the same for Anglicanism. Calvin, well, Calvin was ruling with an iron hand and had established a theocracy in the cantons of Switzerland.

At least, prior to the Reformation there was more of a delineation between State and Church (the Church also believed that as the Bride of Christ the State could not subject it to its temporal rule).

p.s. Quite a few Church Fathers from the West, prior to the schism, taught separation of Church and State (caesaropapism affected the East rather than the West).

 

[Duane1966]

it’s not about Calvin, but the Reformers executing death sentences against heretics.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2014/08/reply-to-reformed-luther-apologist.html?m=1

Dave’s site is first-rate.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano;13861825:

Hey bro,

This raises some ?'s…

Yes

Do you believe the Reformation had separation of Church and State as a goal?

No, but I think the abuse of power by both Church and the State in those times and earlier helped bring about the separation.

Are you suggesting Christians were killed for defying the Bishop of Rome?

Defying the Bishop of Rome? If wanting to believe in God and practice your faith in a different perspective from the Roman Catholic Church is defying him then I guess the answer is yes. From what I gather some Christians from the beginning just wanted freedom to practice their beliefs in safety. Not all the earliest of Christians were joined to the Catholic Church.

What Church are you referring to?

From what I read the Anabaptist tradition that you referred to in your post may very well have had their roots in The Way. They were pretty much extinguished in the first centuries but quietly existed or were exposed periodically through the centuries and many martyred. They were ushered into the Reformation and hated by not only the Catholic Church but even more so by some of the Protestant reformers. To this day their descendants therefore do not really consider the term Protestant to pertain to them.

 

[Wannano]

I agree with you 100%, that Jesus never intended for His Kingdom to be “of this world” and conflating the two is what set the stage for the Protestant Revolt.

I think it was about 300 years after Contantine, though, when the Seat of the Roman Empire removed to Constantinople, and the Roman Pontiff was left with secular authority in the East.

Thank you. I never had time to respond today until now. You are probably right about the time frame, I have always understood Constantine set up the framework.

 

[Wannano]

it’s not about Calvin, but the Reformers executing death sentences against heretics.

Ok, understood. You presented an outstanding article.

 

[Wannano]

Dave’s site is first-rate.

Absolutely!

 

[guanophore]

You speak in generalizations. Can you give specifics to your claims about practices that were in conflict with Christ’s teachings? And how about a link to to those martyrs who weren’t Catholics?

This is not my post, so no, I cannot speak to the contents. I was unable to find the post in the thread, and the link goes back to another post, so that makes me think it got pruned for some reason. I thought it was posted by alwayswill.

 

[Duane1966]

From what I read the Anabaptist tradition that you referred to in your post may very well have had their roots in The Way. They were pretty much extinguished in the first centuries but quietly existed or were exposed periodically through the centuries and many martyred. They were ushered into the Reformation and hated by not only the Catholic Church but even more so by some of the Protestant reformers. To this day their descendants therefore do not really consider the term Protestant to pertain to them.

Can you give me a link showing that they existed in the first century, and quietly existed and we’re martyred through the centuries? Some writings from those early centuries from the links you provide would be helpful also. Also a link showing that they were hated by the Catholic Church? And if possible, could these links quote official documents from these time periods showing that hatred was officially taught?

 

[Duane1966]

When I first read this I have to admit I was stunned because it didn’t seem like something I would expect you to say. After reading the article about Calvin I think I now know what you are reflecting back to the other poster.

It is interesting how all Christians have to concede that the way of Christ did not include violence. Really that was one of the central tenets of His teaching. It is one of the teachings we find too hard to accept so Christendom has been very adept to side step the priciple in an effort to justify the concept of Church authority and responsibility to govern the Church. It so interests me that in the article you used to point out who Calvin really was points out that the given philosophy was established by the conversion of Constantine and how he was able to tie church and state together. The Catholic Church has taken his sign as a message from God. The union of church and state that intituted practices which were and are in conflict with the teachings of Christ is unfortunate. This I believe in simple terms set the stage for corruption and gave a platform for men like Calvin centuries later.

From what I read there were people who quietly existed all through from the time of Constantine who were martyred for their own belief that did not give obedience to the state church.

You speak in generalizations. Can you give specifics to your claims about practices that were in conflict with Christ’s teachings? And how about a link to to those martyrs?

 

[Duane1966]

This is not my post, so no, I cannot speak to the contents. I was unable to find the post in the thread, and the link goes back to another post, so that makes me think it got pruned for some reason. I thought it was posted by alwayswill.

I corrected the formatting of the person I was quoting. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[rcwitness]

No, but I think the abuse of power by both Church and the State in those times and earlier helped bring about the separation.

Yes, but also the rejection of authority and obedience to leaders. Both sides.

Defying the Bishop of Rome? If wanting to believe in God and practice your faith in a different perspective from the Roman Catholic Church is defying him then I guess the answer is yes. From what I gather some Christians from the beginning just wanted freedom to practice their beliefs in safety. Not all the earliest of Christians were joined to the Catholic Church.

Here, you are pitting belief in God and faith against the Catholic Church. Claiming that the earliest of Christians were not all Catholic raises more questions. Like was it faith which compelled them to reject the unity of the whole Church? And can you provide some support of these claims?

From what I read the Anabaptist tradition that you referred to in your post may very well have had their roots in The Way. They were pretty much extinguished in the first centuries but quietly existed or were exposed periodically through the centuries and many martyred. They were ushered into the Reformation and hated by not only the Catholic Church but even more so by some of the Protestant reformers. To this day their descendants therefore do not really consider the term Protestant to pertain to them.

So you are attributing orthodox Christianity to Anabaptists? While at the same time claiming a “quiet” and “invisible” like quality? They were not a part of Councils? They did not hold offices of leadership? You are asking me to accept quite a lot here without documentation. What are your resources you have relied on to come to a conclusion that draws you away from Communion with the Catholic Faith? I am afraid this has the characteristics of a conspiracy theory.

 

[GKC]

False.

“Modern science” developed because of the Catholic Church NOT because of the so-called Enlightenment NOR the Protestant Revolt.

In Catholicism and Science, Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004) points out that:
“Alfred North Whitehead, the great philosopher and mathematician, co-author with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica, credited “medieval theology” for the rise of science. He pointed to the “insistence on the rationality of God,” which produced the belief that “the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith.”

**“To sum up: The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: Nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Moreover, because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation it ought to be possible to discover these principles. These crucial religious ideas were why the rise of science occurred in Christian Europe, not somewhere else.” [My bold].

**‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe—the so-called Dark Ages.

‘The progress achieved during the “Dark Ages” was not merely technological. Medieval Europe excelled in philosophy and science. The term “Scientific Revolution” is in many ways as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth.’

“Things come in their times. Sustained and organized scientific inquiry, which grew and flowered on its efforts, and spread, was a Western achievement”.

What Stark is saying is somewhat what I was saying, above. He attributes, in his For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (which is the source for some of the above quoted material), the distinctive quality of the Western scientific achievements more to monotheism, not only to the Church in itself. I think it a little harsh to deny the developments of the classical civilizations the name of science, as opposed to technology, lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, crafts, technologies, engineering, learning, or knowledge, and not all historians of science would do so (Sarton certainly doesn’t). But there certainly was the addition of the concept of an organized, cooperative, empirical, testable, evolving study of it all, that was peculiar to the West, and flowered in a certain time, under the Church.

And now, of course, I need Stark’s cited book. Drat. I’ll also need to see how many of my other books on the subject I still have around. Drat.

 

[susanlo]

Yes, but also the rejection of authority and obedience to leaders. Both sides.

Here, you are pitting belief in God and faith against the Catholic Church. Claiming that the earliest of Christians were not all Catholic raises more questions. Like was it faith which compelled them to reject the unity of the whole Church? And can you provide some support of these claims?

So you are attributing orthodox Christianity to Anabaptists? While at the same time claiming a “quiet” and “invisible” like quality? They were not a part of Councils? They did not hold offices of leadership? You are asking me to accept quite a lot here without documentation. What are your resources you have relied on to come to a conclusion that draws you away from Communion with the Catholic Faith? I am afraid this has the characteristics of a conspiracy theory.

Are we talking about Baptist Successionism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism

I recently learned about them because they are another church that claims to be the one true church.

This isn’t the same as the majority of the Anabaptists and later Baptist groups that began in the 16th century. Those groups were started by Catholic (and later Lutheran) clergy and laity. They disagreed with church teachings and received their name because they would baptize adult believers who had been baptized as infants. They were called by outsiders - re-Baptists or Anabaptists.

 

[rcwitness]

Are we talking about Baptist Successionism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism

I recently learned about them because they are another church that claims to be the one true church.

This isn’t the same as the majority of the Anabaptists and later Baptist groups that began in the 16th century. Those groups were started by Catholic (and later Lutheran) clergy and laity. They disagreed with church teachings and received their name because they would baptize adult believers who had been baptized as infants. They were called by outsiders - re-Baptists or Anabaptists.

Thank you. That is probably the theory. Seems like an “invisible” Apostolic Succession.

 

[Wannano]

Thank you. That is probably the theory. Seems like an “invisible” Apostolic Succession.

I am going to respond to all of you in this reply to rc so I hope you all read it! I am sort of kicking myself for starting this conversation at this particular time. Let me explain. Last winter while at my winter home down south I was given a book titled MARTYRS MIRROR. The book I was given was very old and about 1100 pages. If you Google the title you can I believe still order a book. This is the major source of information that I would have to reference everybody to. I no longer have the book in my possession. If anybody is open minded enough to look at a very interesting different perspective then read the book.

Heres where I must apologize I guess. I started something and now because I am back to my grain farm where we are in the beginning stages of planting our crops and putting in long days I have not the time to spend on caf. I am not avoiding anyone in any way by not directly responding. I looking back fully realize I should have refrained from responding to the article about Anabaptists that was in relationship to Protestant reformers who tried to kill them off.
If anyone bothers to find or order a book and another time wants to discuss it with me I would be open to that. Sorry for any upset I may have caused.

 

[Wannano]

Are we talking about Baptist Successionism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism

I recently learned about them because they are another church that claims to be the one true church.

This isn’t the same as the majority of the Anabaptists and later Baptist groups that began in the 16th century. Those groups were started by Catholic (and later Lutheran) clergy and laity. They disagreed with church teachings and received their name because they would baptize adult believers who had been baptized as infants. They were called by outsiders - re-Baptists or Anabaptists.

I had not heard of Baptist succession and the chart looks interesting. I may be wrong but I think the idea is that Anabaptist thought and practice mimics the New Testament Church and while not in an organized way it has existed within different groups thru the centuries to the present time. To say that the Anabaptists of the 16th century were started by existing clergy from other churches is not what I completely understand, I understand it to be more along the lines of Anabaptist groups already in existence receiving the attention of and then leadership from the existing clergy. This is the case of Catholic priest Menno Simons who lined up with the “peaceful Anabaptists” who were distinguished from some Anabaptist groups who were very radical and revolting .

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

If you call heresy and schism good. But the 2 good things it brought was the Counter reformation and Council of Trent. The picture is called “The Triumph of Religion Over Heresy and Hatred” by LeGros.
Anti Papists and Protestors Jon Huss and Martin Luther are cast out by Mary while an angel rips up their books of schismatic hatred.