What changed in 500 years?

[Contarini]

The Protestant Reformation was based on essential doctrinal issues. It is my understanding that nothing has changed doctrinally in the last 500 years in regards to the Protestant Reformation. Has the Roman Catholic Church changed on the issues that caused the Protestant Reformation? The issues are still the same. Would you agree with my conclusion?

No. What has changed is (on the Protestant side) that many of us have recognized that the teachings of the Reformers were not “the Gospel” but merely one particular flawed and fallible human interpretation thereof. On the Catholic side, what has changed is that Catholics have further developed and explained their doctrines in ways that make a lot more sense than the ways they were often explained in the 16th century. On certain issues, these explanations look to many of us like retractations, even though the Catholic Church of course refuses to admit this.

It does not therefore follow that we should all flock back to Rome. But it does follow that, as Christians who hold to the supreme authority of the Word of God, we should hold up the teachings of the Reformers to the scrutiny of the Word of God, as interpreted through 2000 years of Christian tradition. By that standard, some of their teachings are flatly wrong, while others remain valid theological constructions which can be fruitfully discussed with Catholics in order to come to a fuller understanding of our common Faith.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Do you understand that I adhere to the solas of the Reformation?

I don’t think that embracing two-word slogans is a theologically fruitful action. In fact, I presume that you embrace particular theological tenets which for you are handily summarized by the “solas.” It would be better to flesh those tenets out in detail so that we can discuss them adequately, rather than throwing around vague but resounding slogans which can each mean a thousand things.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Incidentally, the Catholic Church had taken care of those German Bishops and they were made to cease their wrong doing and make apologies.

Could you provide a source for this claim, including the names of the bishops and the dates when they were “taken care of”?

Also, Martin Luther had a bone to pick about celibacy because very shortly after his break he married a nun that he took with him in his movement.

Several years afterward. Obviously this was not the reason for the break. It’s an irrelevant and unjustified low blow.

ML was very close to total reconciliation with the church when the one bishop he trusted and could work with died and nobody else could work with him as well or even wanted to try.

Again, could you provide evidence for this, with the name of the bishop and his date of death?

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

No. What has changed is (on the Protestant side) that many of us have recognized that the teachings of the Reformers were not “the Gospel” but merely one particular flawed and fallible human interpretation thereof. On the Catholic side, what has changed is that Catholics have further developed and explained their doctrines in ways that make a lot more sense than the ways they were often explained in the 16th century. On certain issues, these explanations look to many of us like retractations, even though the Catholic Church of course refuses to admit this.

It does not therefore follow that we should all flock back to Rome. But it does follow that, as Christians who hold to the supreme authority of the Word of God, we should hold up the teachings of the Reformers to the scrutiny of the Word of God, as interpreted through 2000 years of Christian tradition. By that standard, some of their teachings are flatly wrong, while others remain valid theological constructions which can be fruitfully discussed with Catholics in order to come to a fuller understanding of our common Faith.

Edwin

That is a wise post which I agree. Since the Reformation was a radical change in such a short time, we need to test all things in light of the Scirptures. I actually like the 39 Articles of Faith standard of Anglicans. So, how do we test what the Reformers taught? I think the solas is the best representation of what the Protestant Reformers embraced in unity.

Do you agree with the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation? Why and why not? Which particular sola gives you problems as you see it?

 

[Reformed]

I’m not too sure of how it works with Protestants, so let me instead compare Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

The Roman Catholics say “What we teach is the truth, and we will never stop teaching that truth.”

Whereas the Eastern Orthodox say “What we teach is the truth, and we will never stop teaching that truth.”

Perhaps you can see the similarity.

But neither side says to the other, “You teach error, and you will never stop teaching that error.” Thus, both sides have hope of eventual reconciliation, even though they see it differently.

Well, there is more similarites between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism; therefore ecumenism makes more sense. However, it is my understanding that both churches claim to be “The One True Church”. Maybe the East and the West want to unite so they can refute the Protestants together.

 

[Reformed]

I don’t think that embracing two-word slogans is a theologically fruitful action. In fact, I presume that you embrace particular theological tenets which for you are handily summarized by the “solas.” It would be better to flesh those tenets out in detail so that we can discuss them adequately, rather than throwing around vague but resounding slogans which can each mean a thousand things.

Edwin

I think there is much more to the solas than you realize. Please consider the Cambridge Declaration to help you understand where I stand. I’m not sure if some of the Anglicans signed the Cambridge Declaration and are part of The Alliance of Confession Evangelicals. Maybe you can let me know?

reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/cambridge.html

Aaha!!! … I answered my own question. There are Anglicans who are part of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals!!!

alliancenet.org/

 

[Peter_J]

Well, there is more similarites between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism; therefore ecumenism makes more sense. However, it is my understanding that both churches claim to be “The One True Church”. Maybe the East and the West want to unite so they can refute the Protestants together.

Pretty much.

But that’s not really the point of my post.

Put it this way, Protestants presumably don’t say “Roman Catholics teach error, and will never stop teaching that error.”

 

[Peter_J]

That is a wise post which I agree. Since the Reformation was a radical change in such a short time, we need to test all things in light of the Scirptures. I actually like the 39 Articles of Faith standard of Anglicans. So, how do we test what the Reformers taught? I think the solas is the best representation of what the Protestant Reformers embraced in unity.

Do you agree with the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation? Why and why not? Which particular sola gives you problems as you see it?

I’m only familiar with 3: grace alone, faith alone, and scripture alone. Of those, the only one I can say I agree with is grace alone. “Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

What are the other 2 solas?

 

[Reformed]

I’m only familiar with 3: grace alone, faith alone, and scripture alone. Of those, the only one I can say I agree with is grace alone. “Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

What are the other 2 solas?

Here is a neutral source. I’m sure you will agree with the last one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

 

[BlestOne]

Wouldn’t believing in the 5 solas be a contradiction? I mean if you believe in Bible alone, how can you believe in faith alone or grace alone? Wouldn’t faith alone exclude the Bible alone and visa versa?

 

[Reformed]

Wouldn’t believing in the 5 solas be a contradiction? I mean if you believe in Bible alone, how can you believe in faith alone or grace alone? Wouldn’t faith alone exclude the Bible alone and visa versa?

That’s a good question, but no they do not contradict one another. They are all necessary. Do you agree with any of the solas?

 

[mattkubes]

That’s a good question, but no they do not contradict one another. They are all necessary. Do you agree with any of the solas?

It’s hard to agree with two words that aren’t qualified and mean a myriad of things to different people. I know you gave the Wikipedia entry on them, but I find it hard to believe that every Protestant who went to that page would agree with every word there.

 

[Contarini]

It’s hard to agree with two words that aren’t qualified and mean a myriad of things to different people. I know you gave the Wikipedia entry on them, but I find it hard to believe that every Protestant who went to that page would agree with every word there.

Reformed earlier referred to the “Cambridge Declaration,” which includes a definition of the “solas.” I have not yet posted my own thoughts on this, but intend to when I have time.

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

It’s hard to agree with two words that aren’t qualified and mean a myriad of things to different people. I know you gave the Wikipedia entry on them, but I find it hard to believe that every Protestant who went to that page would agree with every word there.

Hi Matt,

Here’s more resources regarding the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation. I hope we can agree of the last sola of the Reformation: Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Reformed-Theology/Five-Solas-of-the-Reformation/

 

[adstrinity]

Are you proclaiming that Jesus only died for those who are members of the Catholic Church and not for other Christians?

Why are you changing the subject? That’s odd.

 

[RobHom]

That’s a good question, but no they do not contradict one another. They are all necessary. Do you agree with any of the solas?

Even if they do not “actually” contradict one another… they create a set of paradoxes…in that the word “alone” means precisely that.
It is neither rational nor logical to have FIVE “alones” to make up anything, much less a set of theological beliefs.

This is a good deal of the problem I see with many non-Catholic religions or denominations. Too many “alones”… All of which are “man-made” traditions…something which non-Catholics take great delight in stating that Catholics do…and yet???

I also see many non-Catholics are being somewhat Quixotic in that they make great points ad infinitum about “sola scriptura”, yet often turn around and quote writings of the ECF’s… The majority of those writings they reference are not contained in the Bible, therefore…???

I’m not sure if you are getting my “drift”…but I am trying to say as politely as I can…that some non-Catholics are hypocrites. I am not necessarily pointing the finger at you…as its a general statement.

 

[Contarini]

Even if they do not “actually” contradict one another… they create a set of paradoxes…in that the word “alone” means precisely that.

You are deliberately using language in a wooden way in order to oversimplify and caricature the issue. The word “alone” in each of the “solas” indicates a specific thing that Christ or faith or grace does and nothing else can do.

Edwin

 

[churchcamefirst]

The Protestant Reformation was based on essential doctrinal issues. It is my understanding that nothing has changed doctrinally in the last 500 years in regards to the Protestant Reformation. Has the Roman Catholic Church changed on the issues that caused the Protestant Reformation? The issues are still the same. Would you agree with my conclusion?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

The Catholic church didn’t “cause” the Reformation, a simple ex-Catholic monk did, namely Martin Luther, the heretic.

 

[Ignatius]

The Protestant Reformation was based on essential doctrinal issues. It is my understanding that nothing has changed doctrinally in the last 500 years in regards to the Protestant Reformation.

Actually, the fracturing of Protestantism began less than ten years after it’s foundation, causing Luther to lament that there were nearly as many misunderstandings as there were heads.

If you read the reformers, you’ll find that modern Protestantism is further from what they taught than it is from Catholicism.

 

[Contarini]

Actually, the fracturing of Protestantism began less than ten years after it’s foundation, causing Luther to lament that there were nearly as many misunderstandings as there were heads.

If you read the reformers, you’ll find that modern Protestantism is further from what they taught than it is from Catholicism.

Which forms of modern Protestantism? This is arguably true for some forms of Protestantism. It’s certainly true of the form I hold, and very self-consciously so. It is probably not true of the form Reformed holds, though no doubt he’s further from the teachings of the Reformers than he thinks. Most of us are further removed from our roots than we think.

Edwin