Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[TinaG]

I think this is a true statement. Luther’s concept of justification was Catholic, as is evidenced by the Joint Declaration.

The Reformed view emanates from Calvin, who further departed from the Apostolic faith by creating new doctrines, a new soteriology, and innovative concepts that were previously unconceived by the people of God. It owes little to the Apostolic faith,and represents such a significant departure from it as to be considered “a different Gospel” than what we received from them.

Hi,

I’ll post again “to stay in the game” but it seems the thread is wandering, and so fast, that it is difficult to keep up with.

From what I have read of the Joint Declaration, the major issues were avoided in the name of harmony and the document was thoroughly blasted by a number of non-signing Lutherans and evangelicals. Some felt it betrayed Lutheran concepts of justification. I think you can find critiques with a simple web-search. Sometime ago I read one on this topic from the Wisconsin synod, which one could describe as “hard-Lutheran.”

Calvin was the earliest and chief expositor of a Reformed view that we know of. He sought to rediscover the “apostolic faith” unburied by the centuries by going back and reviewing the writings we have from the apostles up through Augustine, I believe. He had a fantastic memory and organizational skills. I wonder if you can back up your assertions about its departures - you paint here with such a broad brush that it is difficult to critique. Calvinists are thoroughly Trinitarian, for example - are you accusing them of denying the Trinity? I am not sure what you mean by your assertions, but I decided not to pass over them in silence.

I do not call myself a Calvinist, by the way, although I am a member of a church whose elders and deacons must subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (accepted exceptions are allowed). I am certainly influenced by and educated in the Reformed tradition more than by anyone else. Aside from Bainton’s book on Luther and what I have read here, I know little of Luther, and the Reformed do not consider him Reformed but make a distinction between the Lutherans and the Reformed. The attacks on Luther I read here just seem ugly and petty and reflect poorly on their authors more than on someone dead so long who is not here to defend himself.

Allow me to repeat what I said earlier, or should have said: the dereliction of duty by the popes in favor of political power created an absence of authoritative teaching prior to the Reformation. All sorts of teaching sprang up that was not officially contested, and few if anyone knew what was authentic Catholic teaching because no one was saying what was or was not right. Prior to Trent, Luther and Calvin had every right to claim their teaching was as Catholic as anyone else’s. Somewhere I read that Trent does not actually condemn Lutheran or Reformed teaching, but condemns errors that the reformers themselves also condemn. Trent makes my head spin and I cannot make heads or tails of it.

-Tina “That is Enough for Now” G

 

[TinaG]

Thanks for the clarification to you and Guano.

This comment about the snow covered dunghill may not be an authentic quote and no Lutheran believes that we will be sinners in heaven. In fact from everything I’ve read (though I don’t have the citations offhand without searching for them), Luther was supposedly apprehensive about getting rid of the notion of “purgation” (not “purgatory”, as it was taught by the uneducated in the 16th Century) because we still believe that there has to be some transformation (which presumably would come at the instant of justification–any other Lutherans able to clarify this?). The emphasis is that the transformation is one initiated and completed by God–the dung is us in this lifetime. This post may be interesting to you:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/has-martin-luthers-snow-covered.html/QUOTE

My understanding is that while justification is viewed as instantaneous, sanctification takes a lifetime. There is a terminological problem here: what Catholics mean by “justification” seems to be what Protestants mean by “justification AND sanctification”.
Those who are justified become sanctified. Death takes care of any remaining issues.
The dung (to use that image) is first covered with snow so that it is not destroyed by judgement, and then transformed into gold.

-Tina “Not Much of a Theologian Either” G

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the clarification to you and Guano.

This comment about the snow covered dunghill may not be an authentic quote and no Lutheran believes that we will be sinners in heaven. In fact from everything I’ve read (though I don’t have the citations offhand without searching for them), Luther was supposedly apprehensive about getting rid of the notion of “purgation” (not “purgatory”, as it was taught by the uneducated in the 16th Century) because we still believe that there has to be some transformation (which presumably would come at the instant of justification–any other Lutherans able to clarify this?). The emphasis is that the transformation is one initiated and completed by God–the dung is us in this lifetime. This post may be interesting to you:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/has-martin-luthers-snow-covered.html

My understanding is that he was even reluctant about ridding the notion Purgatory, too. The big issues with the reofrmers was the practices that grew up around Purgatory - indulgences, etc. Lutherans certainly understand that nothing unclean enters Heaven.
The main issue with Purgatory, however, is the lack of a scriptural reference to an intermediate state/place. The 'snow covered dung-hill", would be more closely akin to our lives here on earth - at once both saint and sinner.

Jon

 

[jnpl1185]

My understanding is that while justification is viewed as instantaneous, sanctification takes a lifetime. There is a terminological problem here: what Catholics mean by “justification” seems to be what Protestants mean by “justification AND sanctification”.
Those who are justified become sanctified. Death takes care of any remaining issues.
The dung (to use that image) is first covered with snow so that it is not destroyed by judgement, and then transformed into gold.

-Tina “Not Much of a Theologian Either” G

I think the “most Lutheran” view from what I was taught is that the transformative process of sanctification is ultimately unknown to us because it is not revealed in the Bible as such. Obviously it has to take place, but how is beyond us. You are right, though, that the assumption of many is that justification occurs simultaneously with sanctification. But many Anglicans and Lutherans have no problem with a notion of “purgation” if we are talking about a purification from sin and sinfulness. How that happens is another matter.

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Yes, in that sense … Martin Luther was a ‘type’ of Christ. Condemned for doing the right thing by a leader that didnt have a clue…

Only if Christ was a arrogant, scrupulous and rebellions heretic - which he was not.

I dont think Martin Luther was ever officially designated a heretic by the CC.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Yes, in that sense … Martin Luther was a ‘type’ of Christ. Condemned for doing the right thing by a leader that didnt have a clue…

I dont think Martin Luther was ever officially designated a heretic by the CC.

I’m sure he was.

Jon

 

[jnpl1185]

Originally Posted by 1voice
I dont think Martin Luther was ever officially designated a heretic by the CC.

Luther was excommunicated in 1521.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi,

I’ll post again “to stay in the game” but it seems the thread is wandering, and so fast, that it is difficult to keep up with.

From what I have read of the Joint Declaration, the major issues were avoided in the name of harmony and the document was thoroughly blasted by a number of non-signing Lutherans and evangelicals. Some felt it betrayed Lutheran concepts of justification. I think you can find critiques with a simple web-search. Sometime ago I read one on this topic from the Wisconsin synod, which one could describe as “hard-Lutheran.”

Calvin was the earliest and chief expositor of a Reformed view that we know of. He sought to rediscover the “apostolic faith” unburied by the centuries by going back and reviewing the writings we have from the apostles up through Augustine, I believe. He had a fantastic memory and organizational skills. I wonder if you can back up your assertions about its departures - you paint here with such a broad brush that it is difficult to critique. Calvinists are thoroughly Trinitarian, for example - are you accusing them of denying the Trinity? I am not sure what you mean by your assertions, but I decided not to pass over them in silence.

I do not call myself a Calvinist, by the way, although I am a member of a church whose elders and deacons must subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (accepted exceptions are allowed). I am certainly influenced by and educated in the Reformed tradition more than by anyone else. Aside from Bainton’s book on Luther and what I have read here, I know little of Luther, and the Reformed do not consider him Reformed but make a distinction between the Lutherans and the Reformed. The attacks on Luther I read here just seem ugly and petty and reflect poorly on their authors more than on someone dead so long who is not here to defend himself.

Allow me to repeat what I said earlier, or should have said: the dereliction of duty by the popes in favor of political power created an absence of authoritative teaching prior to the Reformation. All sorts of teaching sprang up that was not officially contested, and few if anyone knew what was authentic Catholic teaching because no one was saying what was or was not right. ***** I"m going to contest this. You need to show that there WAS an absence of authoritative teaching because ‘no one’ was saying what was or was not right. I do not believe this was the case in any way and any student of history will be glad to point out that for crying out loud, HENRY VIII (yes that Henry) was refuting Luther and received for his work the Title of “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope. Now if Henry in England was cognizant enough of Luther to go against Luther point to point, and that refutation was ‘approved’ by the Pope, doesn’t that kind of say, hey yes there was authoritative teaching going on and the POPE was the one who made the final decision? IOW, your vague presumption that there were scads of poor souls wandering in Europe with ‘no one’ to ‘teach them’ is blasted from the start.**

Prior to Trent, Luther and Calvin had every right to claim their teaching was as Catholic as anyone else’s. NO they did not. Somewhere I read that Trent does not actually condemn Lutheran or Reformed teaching, but condemns errors that the reformers themselves also condemn. Trent makes my head spin and I cannot make heads or tails of it.

-Tina “That is Enough for Now” G

 

[elvisman]

My understanding is that he was even reluctant about ridding the notion Purgatory, too. The big issues with the reofrmers was the practices that grew up around Purgatory - indulgences, etc. Lutherans certainly understand that nothing unclean enters Heaven.
The main issue with Purgatory, however, is the lack of a scriptural reference to an intermediate state/place. The 'snow covered dung-hill", would be more closely akin to our lives here on earth - at once both saint and sinner.

Jon

The Church offers the following Scriptural support of a final purgation:
Mal. 3:2, 2 Macc. 42-46, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 5:25-26, Matt. 12:32, Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59.

There is absolutely NO evidence for Sola Scriptura, yet Protestants are fond of embracing this doctrine. There is MUCH more Scriptural support for Purgatory so I don’t see your point.

 

[elvisman]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Yes, in that sense … Martin Luther was a ‘type’ of Christ. Condemned for doing the right thing by a leader that didnt have a clue…

I dont think Martin Luther was ever officially designated a heretic by the CC.

Excuse me?
He was excommunicated for his heretical views in 1521.

 

[jnpl1185]

The Church offers the following Scriptural support of a final purgation:
Mal. 3:2, 2 Macc. 42-46, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 5:25-26, Matt. 12:32, Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59.

There is absolutely NO evidence for Sola Scriptura, yet Protestants are fond of embracing this doctrine. There is MUCH more Scriptural support for Purgatory so I don’t see your point.

This is not the Sola Scriptura thread, dude.

And these quotes do not support the doctrine of purgatory in the detail in which it is explained by the CC. You need the explanation of the Church in order to come to the conclusion of the doctrine–the doctrine as it is laid out by the Church doesn’t follow logically from scripture alone, but from tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium and councils. If you accept the Councils and traditions, so be it. If you don’t, you aren’t going to come to the same conclusion, necessarily.

 

[elvisman]

This is not the Sola Scriptura thread, dude.

HUH?? Who said it was?

I was using the comparison to Sola Scriptura to show the lack of support for this false doctrine of Protestantism because is was pointed out that there was a lack of Scriptural support for Purgatory.

Read the posts more carefully - dude . . .

And these quotes do not support the doctrine of purgatory in the detail in which it is explained by the CC. You need the explanation of the Church in order to come to the conclusion of the doctrine–the doctrine as it is laid out by the Church doesn’t follow logically from scripture alone, but from tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium and councils. If you accept the Councils and traditions, so be it. If you don’t, you aren’t going to come to the same conclusion, necessarily.

These verses absolutely DO support the doctrine of Purgatory - along with Tradition. Nobody ever said that it was taught by the Church from Scripture alone.

Again - READ the posts before responding.

 

[JonNC]

The Church offers the following Scriptural support of a final purgation:
Mal. 3:2, 2 Macc. 42-46, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 5:25-26, Matt. 12:32, Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59.

There is absolutely NO evidence for Sola Scriptura, yet Protestants are fond of embracing this doctrine. There is MUCH more Scriptural support for Purgatory so I don’t see your point.

Hi elvisman,

My point is regarding an intermediate state/place, and what we see as a lack of scriptural support for it. The recently released document I’ve linked goes into much detail.

usccb.org/seia/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life.pdf

Jon

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
I dont think Martin Luther was ever officially designated a heretic by the CC.

Luther was excommunicated in 1521.

I know… that is different.

 

[elvisman]

Hi elvisman,

My point is regarding an intermediate state/place, and what we see as a lack of scriptural support for it. The recently released document I’ve linked goes into much detail.

usccb.org/seia/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life.pdf

Jon

Thanks, Jon.
As is included in the document you referred to, I think that the brilliant theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar said it best when he wrote:

---

“God is the ‘last thing’ of the creature. Gained, he is heaven; lost, he is hell; examining, he is judgment; purifying, he is purgatory. He it is to whom finite being dies and through whom it rises to him, in him. This he is, however, as he presents himself to the world, that is, in his Son, Jesus Christ, who is the revelation of God and, therefore, the whole essence of the last things.”**

 

[1voice]

Excuse me?
He was excommunicated for his heretical views in 1521.

Excommunication and being branded a heretic by the CC are separate issues. You guys are the ones that are sticklers for dotting Catholic i’s.

… there is a distinction. You can wish that he was officially a heretic … but he i dont think it was ever made official .

 

[rinnie]

WRONG.
(Sorry, Guanophore, but she had it coming)

As I have explained over and over and over again - the papacy is not a man, nor is it men in gneral. It is an office instituted by Christ for His Body - the Church. You don’t have an inkling as to what you’re talking about and ere merely here because you have an axe to grind with the Church - as most of your posts display.

This is meaningless. It shouldn’t have mattered whether 10 Popes in a row rerfused to listen to Luther. He should have defended the Body of Christ. But he instead chose to defend himself and graduated to heresy and twisting of doctrine.

Do yourself a favor and read some history . . .

How is it people can accept Christ being the SON of God, but cannot accept the Eucharist being the body of Christ?

God sent his only Son who was truly the Living God. Then he said he this is my body which is given up for you. How can people accept God as Man but not God as living bread from heaven?

 

[rinnie]

Excommunication and being branded a heretic by the CC are separate issues. You guys are the ones that are sticklers for dotting Catholic i’s.

… there is a distinction. You can wish that he was officially a heretic … but he i dont think it was ever made official .

He was thrown out of the Church for goodness sakes, How can it be more official then that?

 

[rinnie]

Excommunication and being branded a heretic by the CC are separate issues. You guys are the ones that are sticklers for dotting Catholic i’s.

… there is a distinction. You can wish that he was officially a heretic … but he i dont think it was ever made official .

He was excommunicated for BEING a heretic.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon.
As is included in the document you referred to, I think that the brilliant theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar said it best when he wrote:

---

“God is the ‘last thing’ of the creature. Gained, he is heaven; lost, he is hell; examining, he is judgment; purifying, he is purgatory***. He it is to whom finite being dies and through whom it rises to him, in him. This he is, however, as he presents himself to the world, that is, in his Son, Jesus Christ, who is the revelation of God and, therefore, the whole essence of the last things.”***

Now this I see no problem with. Am I correct in interpreting this to say that Purgatory is nothing more no less than God’s purifying act of grace on His children, cleansing us to be in His presence forever? If so, then we agree on Purgatory.

Jon