Where is Biblical Support for the Reformation....

[JRKH]

My only point is that it really seems no matter what topic we start with, once I start asking questions, all of these topics seem to go back to:

“We are the church that Jesus founded. We are incapable of being wrong in matters of faith and morals. You all are just splinters and heretics”

Or some variant of the above.

So, if that is really your argument in the end, why not just put the matter to rest and prove that one little point. Then everything else, including this thread, will be proved simply from that one tiny assumption being proved correct.

But you are correct. That is another thread.

One that I am not going to start now because of a sour experience I had here on another thread I started. At least I think I started it but don’t hold me to it. However I learned about the ignore user feature of the forum.

I note this in your profile:
Religion:
Protestant I guess, sort of checking things out
I’m not exactly sure what that means but if you are here asking questions then you should be prepared for Catholic answers. After all that is the name of the Website.

As to your constant refrain of “That’s the opinion of Your denomination”, it begins to wear thin because it provides no basis for a profitable exchange of ideas and understandings.
The Catholic Church DOES have the Historical “Pedigree” of an umbroken line of succession from Christ, through Peter to Benedict XVI. This is not opinion, it is fact. Another fact is that it was the Catholic Church which determined, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Canon of the Bible. The Same Bible (Minus 7+ books) that Protestants now claim supercedes the Church.

What I am trying to get to is the Biblical Justification for the establishment of rival, competing Christian Churches. I’d like to try to stay on this topic and not go wandering off on other issues such as papal infalibility and Marion Doctrine. I would be happy to discuss these things in other threads.

Can you give me the Biblical Justification for the Protestant Reformation? Can you show me in the Bible where it is OK to set up a rival Church, or deny that Authority which Christ Gave to His Church, and not to a Book.

Peace
James

 

[With_Questions]

I note this in your profile:
Can you give me the Biblical Justification for the Protestant Reformation? Can you show me in the Bible where it is OK to set up a rival Church, or deny that Authority which Christ Gave to His Church, and not to a Book.

Peace
James

Actually this is a good question.

The standard answer would be that the Protestant reformers were unjustly excommunicated from the existing church at the time.

So if one assume they were unjustly excommunicated, their only recourse would be to start something new.

So they established something new under duress, but that was not their original intention.

Of course you will debate whether they were unjustly excommunicated.

But I think that would be the logic used.

 

[ralphinal]

Actually this is a good question.

The standard answer would be that the Protestant reformers were unjustly excommunicated from the existing church at the time.

So if one assume they were unjustly excommunicated, their only recourse would be to start something new.

So they established something new under duress, but that was not their original intention.

Of course you will debate whether they were unjustly excommunicated.

But I think that would be the logic used.

Before we discuss if it was unjust, why don’t you give us the proof to support your statement. It may be more charitable if we see why it was unjust and discuss just on that.

 

[With_Questions]

Before we discuss if it was unjust, why don’t you give us the proof to support your statement. It may be more charitable if we see why it was unjust and discuss just on that.

I would, but church history is beyond my area of expertise. I don’t like faking intelligent conversations.

I am just commenting on what I think the correct logic would be.

And I think it is a true statement that if their excommunication was unjust, their only recourse would be the establishment of something new.

I say this because the flow that I read in these threads is that Martin Luther was unhappy with the church so he decided to start something new. And the heretic Martin was dead wrong to start something new.

This flow completely ignores the elephant in the china shop event in the middle of all of this.

 

[ralphinal]

I would, but church history is beyond my area of expertise. I don’t like faking intelligent conversations.

I am just commenting on what I think the correct logic would be.

And I think it is a true statement that if their excommunication was unjust, their only recourse would be the establishment of something new.

How about we pick one reformer and on a new thread see if it was unjust? DOes that sound fair? You can pick the Reformer

 

[ralphinal]

Oh, and I wish more of us would try to avoid faking intellegent conversations (including me)

 

[With_Questions]

How about we pick one reformer and on a new thread see if it was unjust? DOes that sound fair? You can pick the Reformer

You can start a thread on this, but I don’t know how much I can contribute.

First we would have to establish the historical flow of events leading to the excommunication, what happened at the excommunication, what caused the excommunication, and what the results of the excommunication.

This is very interesting, but way over my head. But I would sort of like to see smarter people than myself have at it on this one.

Since, Martin was the guy who started the Reformation, he would be the one I would choose. Plus, there are a few very smart Lutherans here who I’m sure would be more than willing to defend Martin on this one.

Hey, I’ll start it.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, I have a legitimate question that you, as an Episcopalian, might not be able to answer as a Baptist would. If I accept your statement that once the Church establishes something as the inspired Truth or Word of God, it then takes priority over other things, why would that not apply to Sacred Tradition? If the Church holds that the Traditions are just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as Scriptures, why is that not the same?

I have no problem applying the same principle to *specific *traditions that can be shown to have been treated in this way consistently by the Church from the beginning. The problem with the Council of Trent’s doctrine of Tradition (and in some ways this is made even worse by Vatican II, although I find Vatican II’s doctrine on this point very appealing) is that “Tradition” is a general concept. When we say “Scripture” we know, with a limited amount of uncertainty (i.e., the seven disputed books of the OT canon) what we are talking about. When we say “Tradition” no one really knows what we are talking about, because it’s a “living” thing.

So I think the strongest way to put the Protestant case is to shift the burden of proof. It’s not that “traditions” are ruled out in principle. It’s that they have to be able to show, in specific cases, the kind of support that we have for the 39 undisputed books of the OT canon and the 27 books of the NT canon. (Note that by the same standard by which we question non-scriptural tradition, we also give a lesser weight to the seven disputed books of the OT canon–we Anglicans don’t reject them, but we don’t accept them as a sound basis for dogma.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Nicely put but it overlooks one basic problem. The books declared as sacred do not declare themselves supreme over the Church. In fact they do just the opposite. They Declare that Authority Rests with Christ acting through His Church. The NT Bible merely provides evidences of that fact. Jesus establishes the Church and not a Book. He gives that Church broad latitude in Binding and Loosing. He promises it His own Protection. Additional evidence is found in the epistles. (Bulwark and Foundation of Truth)

All of these references to the importance fo the Church are clear and prominent in the Bible. But the Supremacy of Scripture over Church Authority just is not there.

This isn’t a problem that would have presented itself to the Biblical authors. It’s an anachronistic question. You aren’t going to find it explicitly dealt with in Scripture. Scripture does not, contrary to what some Christians think, contain passages explicitly inserted for no other reason than to give guidance for some future controversy. It speaks to us in speaking to its own time. Since by definition the NT was written before the canon of Scripture was complete–i.e., in a time when you had OT Scripture, the living preaching of the apostles, oral tradition about Jesus, and toward the end some parts of the NT already being regarded as Scripture–of course it’s never going to say “here is a complete Scripture and you, Church, had better listen to it.” The only people who can possibly say this are the Church Fathers, who were the ones who completed the task (well, almost–they left us some ambiguity about the OT books and readings found in the LXX but not attested in the Hebrew) of recognizing which books were canonical and which weren’t. And what we find is that the Fathers *consistently *speak of the supremacy of Scripture, even as they also speak of apostolic tradition as authoritative.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

This isn’t a problem that would have presented itself to the Biblical authors. It’s an anachronistic question. You aren’t going to find it explicitly dealt with in Scripture. Scripture does not, contrary to what some Christians think, contain passages explicitly inserted for no other reason than to give guidance for some future controversy. It speaks to us in speaking to its own time. Since by definition the NT was written before the canon of Scripture was complete–i.e., in a time when you had OT Scripture, the living preaching of the apostles, oral tradition about Jesus, and toward the end some parts of the NT already being regarded as Scripture–of course it’s never going to say “here is a complete Scripture and you, Church, had better listen to it.” **The only people who can possibly say this are the Church Fathers, who were the ones who completed the task **(well, almost–they left us some ambiguity about the OT books and readings found in the LXX but not attested in the Hebrew) of recognizing which books were canonical and which weren’t. **And what we find is that the Fathers *consistently ***speak of the supremacy of Scripture, even as they also speak of apostolic tradition as authoritative.

Edwin

Do you have a source for the Church Fathers speaking of the Supremacy of Scripture. I’d like read up on that. Thanks.
I think that it is probably safe to assume that any such statement by a Church Father is going to be in the context of the Church itself and not as a seperate entity.

So the basic situation remains. That the Bible shows in several places the Authority of the Church, given by Christ. Further it teaches that we should be obedient to The Church, as we are to Christ. I have yet to see any Bible based justification for the Reformation.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Actually this is a good question.

The standard answer would be that the Protestant reformers were unjustly excommunicated from the existing church at the time.

So if one assume they were unjustly excommunicated, their only recourse would be to start something new.

To repeat. That is not their only recourse. Repentance is also a choice. Leaving the Church quietly without “Starting something new” is also a choice.

So they established something new under duress, but that was not their original intention.

Again, it would have been better had they stuck to their original intention. As I said earlier, these were intellignet men. They could/should have moderated their arguments in such a way that they would have advanced the case for reform within the Church without Schism.
Who Knows perhaps the “reforms” would have come about sooner with Luther working intelligently and skillfully inside the Church.

Of course you will debate whether they were unjustly excommunicated.

Will I???

But I think that would be the logic used.

Such logic still does not answer the question of where in the Bible is such a defiant disobedience condoned.

Peace
James

 

[ralphinal]

I have no problem applying the same principle to *specific *traditions that can be shown to have been treated in this way consistently by the Church from the beginning. The problem with the Council of Trent’s doctrine of Tradition (and in some ways this is made even worse by Vatican II, although I find Vatican II’s doctrine on this point very appealing) is that “Tradition” is a general concept. When we say “Scripture” we know, with a limited amount of uncertainty (i.e., the seven disputed books of the OT canon) what we are talking about. When we say “Tradition” no one really knows what we are talking about, because it’s a “living” thing.

So I think the strongest way to put the Protestant case is to shift the burden of proof. It’s not that “traditions” are ruled out in principle. It’s that they have to be able to show, in specific cases, the kind of support that we have for the 39 undisputed books of the OT canon and the 27 books of the NT canon. (Note that by the same standard by which we question non-scriptural tradition, we also give a lesser weight to the seven disputed books of the OT canon–we Anglicans don’t reject them, but we don’t accept them as a sound basis for dogma.)

Edwin

Fair enough. Now would the Church have the authority to determine which Traditions have enough proof? Can they pronounce which ones are dogmatic and which ones are not?

 

[JRKH]

I would, but church history is beyond my area of expertise. I don’t like faking intelligent conversations.
I am just commenting on what I think the correct logic would be.

I appreciate your candor here. Perhaps you should do some research on the history of Christianity. I’m sure you would find it fastinating.

And I think it is a true statement that if their excommunication was unjust, their only recourse would be the establishment of something new.

As I explained in my post above, that is not their only recourse.

I say this because the flow that I read in these threads is that Martin Luther was unhappy with the church so he decided to start something new. And the heretic Martin was dead wrong to start something new.

This oversimplifies the situation and since you say that Church history is not your forte, perhaps you should read up a bit first.

This flow completely ignores the elephant in the china shop event in the middle of all of this.

And which “elephant” event is this?

Peace
James

 

[jblake]

JRKH;:

They could/should have moderated their arguments in such a way that they would have advanced the case for reform within the Church without Schism.

The original objections were against practices that directly contributed to the economic well being of the church. Given a choice between adhering to the god of greed, and adhering to the God that Jesus taught, the Pope, and the Catholic church consistently chose the god of greed.

Who Knows perhaps the “reforms” would have come about sooner with Luther working intelligently and skillfully inside the Church.

More likely the Church would have dealt with him they way they dealt with the Templars — killed him, and confiscated his worldly goods, so that they continue living the life of Riley, without an irritating thorn to remind them of their sins.

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

With Questions;:

Martin was the guy who started the Reformation

Either John Wycliffe or Peter Waldo are better candidates for that title.

xan

jonathon

 

[Cinette]

**Hi Everybody!

We are having a beautiful sunny day as usual in Johannesburg. On the way to Mass this morning (just two blocks) it felt a little nippy but that has passed and we are set to enjoy a beautiful day.

So…do we have an answer? What is the Biblical support for the Reformation? No answer yet?

We just have to be patient and hope the answer will come soon… **

 

[With_Questions]

To repeat. That is not their only recourse. Repentance is also a choice. Leaving the Church quietly without “Starting something new” is also a choice.

Repentance is only a choice, if there is something to repent from.

If I’m unjustly convicted of murder when in truth I am innocent, I would not turn around and repent of murder. Similarly if their excommunication was unjust, there is obviously nothing to repent from.

So what Luther did following his excommunication was both reasonable and morally correct if the basis of his excommunication was unjust in the eyes of almighty God.

 

[ralphinal]

Repentance is only a choice, if there is something to repent from.

If I’m unjustly convicted of murder when in truth I am innocent, I would not turn around and repent of murder. Similarly if their excommunication was unjust, there is obviously nothing to repent from.

So what Luther did following his excommunication was both reasonable and morally correct if the basis of his excommunication was unjust in the eyes of almighty God.

How do we determine if it was unjust in the eyes of God? Who is the judge of that on earth?

 

[JRKH]

Repentance is only a choice, if there is something to repent from.

If I’m unjustly convicted of murder when in truth I am innocent, I would not turn around and repent of murder. Similarly if their excommunication was unjust, there is obviously nothing to repent from.

So what Luther did following his excommunication was both reasonable and morally correct if the basis of his excommunication was unjust in the eyes of almighty God.

IF - that is the Huge IF isn’t it.

The passages below seem to me to be a clear demonstration of Christ’s authority and how He passed it on to the Church.

Christ’s instruction of what to do about a brother who “sins” against us.:

Matthew 16: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Some of our Protestant brothers will want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this were so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.
So how does Christ define His Church?

Matthew 16: 18-19
18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Even a casual reading of this passage shows that Simon (Peter) is named Rock and upon this Rock Jesus institutes His Church with Authority to Bind and loose. Bind and Loose What? Bind and Loose “Whatever”. This is a Pretty Broad latitude.
But then this begs the question, of Jesus Authority to grant this power.

Matthew 28: 18-20
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Since this passage is given after Jesus Resurrection, it’s safe to say that Jesus Had “The Father’s” ear. In other words His Resurrection was certainly sufficient to Prove His divinity. So Now He has been given Authority in Heaven and Earth. He in turn gave authority to His Church, soon to be founded upon the Rock of Peter (Kepha). This Authority is to Bind, Loose, hold and teach the Truth of the Gospel.

Finally as to the issue of obeying the Church, I will again point to the Masters own words. When Jesus was teaching in Matthew about the Jewish Law and the interpretations thereof, He sternly reprimanded the Jewish leadership and He did so publicly, but what did He tell the Faithful Jewish “laymen”? He told them:

“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)

Jesus is saying that the teaching of the Jewish leaders remains binding and valid even though the leaders themselves are sinful men. Jesus thus establishes that, under the Old Covenant, those who “Sit on the seat of Moses” have the power to bind and loose. Under the New covenant, that Power resides in those who sit on the “Chair of Peter”, who was selected by Christ to Lead His Church.
Even if the Church were to teach something in error, it is still up to us to obey her as the rightful steward of Christ the King. The King will deal harshly with the offenders, and mercifully with His faithful servants. I shudder to think what He will do to those who not only reject but also vilify the Authority He established and has maintained for so long.

This Church is not simply a mystical – ethereal collection of believers, though certainly that is what makes up the Church, it is an institution of God given to us for Guidance. No different than the system set –up in the OT of Priests and Elders teaching and enforcing the Law from the temple.

Now - This is the proofs in the Bible for the Authority of the Church on Earth. They are clear and consistant. I find no such proofs for the actions of the Reformers in setting up new Churches. This is why I started this thread, to see if such proof texts exist. It appears that it does not.

 

[JRKH]

The original objections were against practices that directly contributed to the economic well being of the church. Given a choice between adhering to the god of greed, and adhering to the God that Jesus taught, the Pope, and the Catholic church consistently chose the god of greed.

These statements are broad and highly inflamatory. However I will ignore that. The point of this thread is to determine if those people who believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture, who believe in the idea Sola Scriptura, can point to anything in the Bible which would justify such disobedience to the Authority of the Church. I suggest you look at the Proofs in the Post above and then see if there is any equal proofs for the rebellion of the Reformers.

More likely the Church would have dealt with him they way they dealt with the Templars — killed him, and confiscated his worldly goods, so that they continue living the life of Riley, without an irritating thorn to remind them of their sins.
xan
jonathon

This is just as much of a speculation as mine, but certainly less hopeful and displays a decided lack of faith in Our Lord’s ability to protect His own Church.
As to the “Sins” committed. Christ would deal harshly with those who commit the sins and mercifully with those who obey the Church as His True Church on Earth.

So, to stay on topic, I have plainly posted the Biblical Justifications for the Authority of the Church. What are the Biblical Justifications for the Reformation?

Peace
James