Where is Biblical Support for the Reformation....

[With_Questions]

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.

Your post actually illustrates my observations that everything argued about in these forums an various topics rests on the underlying assumptions of Catholicism being in fact true. So I can rest my case.

Your logic is indeed correct. There would be absolutely no Biblical Support for the Reformation.

IF

The underlying assumptions of Catholicism which you allude to in your post are actually gospel truth in the eyes of the Lord, God almighty.

However, there is a big deal of difference in meaning between the following two statements:

(1) There is no Biblical Support for the Reformation
(2) There is no Biblical Support for the Reformation if the underlying assumptions of Catholicism are true,

I am not going to get sucked into a debate on whether the underlying assumptions of Catholicism are true or false.

 

[With_Questions]

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

Since judging folks is (to quote the illustrious Obama) above my pay grade, I think I will pass on this.

 

[ralphinal]

Since judging folks is (to quote the illustrious Obama) above my pay grade, I think I will pass on this.

Well, then, if we cannot judge at all, how can we say if it was unjust? Shouldn’t we hold pat where we were before?

 

[JRKH]

Your post actually illustrates my observations that everything argued about in these forums an various topics rests on the underlying assumptions of Catholicism being in fact true. So I can rest my case.

Your logic is indeed correct. There would be absolutely no Biblical Support for the Reformation.

IF

The underlying assumptions of Catholicism which you allude to in your post are actually gospel truth in the eyes of the Lord, God almighty.

However, there is a big deal of difference in meaning between the following two statements:

(1) There is no Biblical Support for the Reformation
(2) There is no Biblical Support for the Reformation if the underlying assumptions of Catholicism are true,

I am not going to get sucked into a debate on whether the underlying assumptions of Catholicism are true or false.

Then perhaps you could just post the Biblical Justifications for a Reformation that is based upon the supremacy fo Scripture over Church.
If you do not intend to post such references, which is the subject of this thread, then I would ask that you discontinue with these Off topic posts. If you wish to discuss these other issues, please start other threads.

So I will ask you one last time. Where are the Biblical Justifications for the Reformation? A Reformation based upon the Supremacy, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture.

Peace
James
Peace
James

 

[With_Questions]

Then perhaps you could just post the Biblical Justifications for a Reformation that is based upon the supremacy fo Scripture over Church.
If you do not intend to post such references, which is the subject of this thread, then I would ask that you discontinue with these Off topic posts. If you wish to discuss these other issues, please start other threads.

So I will ask you one last time. Where are the Biblical Justifications for the Reformation? A Reformation based upon the Supremacy, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture.

Peace
James
Peace
James

I think I answered your question. You don’t like my answer so you are accusing me of being off topic.

Sheesh.

I have no intention on arguing Scripture. That is a practice I refuse to do. Argue Scripture with somebody else.

I am resigning from this thread. You are close to the second person I will add to my ignore list.

 

[ralphinal]

I think I answered your question. You don’t like my answer so you are accusing me of being off topic.

Sheesh.

I have no intention on arguing Scripture. That is a practice I refuse to do. Argue Scripture with somebody else.

I am resigning from this thread. You are close to the second person I will add to my ignore list.

I gots to know, who is the first?

 

[Cinette]

---

Incidentally, in connection with the word reformation, the word protestant was first used in Germany by the Elector of Hanover at the time of Luther when he protested ***against freedom of conscience, thereby coining the word Protestantism.

 

[Contarini]

---

Incidentally, in connection with the word reformation, the word protestant was first used in Germany by the Elector of Hanover at the time of Luther when he protested ***against freedom of conscience, thereby coining the word Protestantism.

That’s just silly. They weren’t protesting against freedom of conscience–that is sheer Catholic spin. They were protesting against the Imperial Diet interfering with the religious changes they (the Protestant princes) were making in their dominions. Both sides could claim to be defending freedom of conscience–or neither–because both sides were working within a state-church framework. The language you are using is anachronistic and disingenuous. The Protestants were not interfering with private Catholic belief. They were changing the way the state church did things.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

I think I answered your question. You don’t like my answer so you are accusing me of being off topic.

Sheesh.

I have gone back through all of your posts here and find no place where you have addressed the question in the Original post. You have not quoted a single passage from the Bible that would support the Protestant Reformers actions in creating other Churches.
Forgive me if I have mis-understood how you have answered the question.

I have no intention on arguing Scripture. That is a practice I refuse to do. Argue Scripture with somebody else.

Well I’m not sure why you chose to contribute to this thread then since the OP asked for Biblical references.

I am resigning from this thread. You are close to the second person I will add to my ignore list.

I am sorry if I have upset you. It seems we are simply talking past one another, so I’ll just wish you Good Luck and God’s Blessings on your Journey.

Peace
James

 

[Cinette]

That’s just silly. They weren’t protesting against freedom of conscience–that is sheer Catholic spin. They were protesting against the Imperial Diet interfering with the religious changes they (the Protestant princes) were making in their dominions. Both sides could claim to be defending freedom of conscience–or neither–because both sides were working within a state-church framework. The language you are using is anachronistic and disingenuous. The Protestants were not interfering with private Catholic belief. They were changing the way the state church did things.

Edwin

You see - it is people like you that some posters complain about.:yup: You make discussion and debate unpleasant. You take out your machine gun and da da da da da!

I passed on a bit of information I came across. Now I will go back and do some more research.

I enjoy reading the posts, participating and learning.

One would think that after a whole year on these forums and 2,365 posts you might have learned to be gracious and well mannered

 

[Contarini]

You see - it is people like you that some posters complain about.:yup: You make discussion and debate unpleasant. You take out your machine gun and da da da da da!

I passed on a bit of information I came across. Now I will go back and do some more research.

I enjoy reading the posts, participating and learning.

One would think that after a whole year on these forums and 2,365 posts you might have learned to be gracious and well mannered

No. After a number of years on these forums I have become very impatient with the same old spin. When you have refuted something more than once, it is annoying to see it pop up again. This is not your fault and I’m sorry that I didn’t acknowledge that. But I have no obligation to be gracious toward distortions of history. And if you were not in fact sure that what you said was true, you ought not to have stated it so confidently. Had you said “I recently read in such-and-such a place that,” then you would not be responsible.

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

For the record, Edwin is usually easy to talk to. We’ve been on here a while, and sometimes we feel trapped in deja vu. Likewise, we develop relationships of sorts where we may be harsher to some than others.

 

[reteeks21]

I had raised this question on a couple of other threads and no one answered it so I decided to post it in it’s own thread.

The Protestant Reformation was spawned on the idea that The Church that existed in 1500, which had started out as THE Christian Church was so completely corrupt that it had lost any legitimate claim to Being the One Holy and True Church.
It is built upon the idea that everything we need to know is contained in the Bible. (Sola Scriptura) From this is built all of the various theologies and denominations we know today.
Luther and others felt that they were justified in their “Reformation” due to the problems in the Church at the time and based their Reformed Church on The Bible Alone. Which leads me to this question for the panel.

**Where in the Bible does it teach that it is all right to rebel against the Authority of the Church Which Christ established? **
I see many instances where the Authority of the Church is affirmed, (Bind and Loose, Keys to Kingdom, hell will not prevail, pillar and foundation etc.) but none that say it is OK to dissent or deny or foment rebellion in the Church.
Christ Even told the Jews and His disciples to obey the Scribes and Pharasees while in the same breath calling those Scribes and Pharasees sinners. (Matthew 23:2-3)
Why would Jesus tell His Disciples to Obey their legitimate but sinful Church Leaders and then sanction the disobedience of Luther and others to their legitimate Church leaders?
Where is the Scriptural Foundation for this?
Peace
JAmes

Christ did not tell them to do what they said. He said do what they do but don’t do what they do. He spent the whole time condemning those guys, so why would He tell the disciples to be like them? He wasn’t. He was telling them to run from that type of life not join it. He told them not to do what they did because they did not practiced what they taught. That makes it clear that if your religious leaders aren’t practicing what they teach (i.e., the tenants of Christ) don’t join with them. If He had told them to follow those guys He would contradicting Himself.

Sure, you can tell me that that is not justification for a Reformation, but it is clearly an order to go against the religious establishment if they aren’t sticking to the truth.

 

[Cinette]

No. After a number of years on these forums I have become very impatient with the same old spin. When you have refuted something more than once, it is annoying to see it pop up again. This is not your fault and I’m sorry that I didn’t acknowledge that. But I have no obligation to be gracious toward distortions of history. And if you were not in fact sure that what you said was true, you ought not to have stated it so confidently. Had you said “I recently read in such-and-such a place that,” then you would not be responsible.

Edwin

I understand your sentiments and I confess there have been occasions that I have shared them. You must realise that although you have thrashed different subjects over and over again there will be new posters who come on board like myself who are not fully mature in their Faith as well as Protestants who are looking to learn and exchanging ideas. You are going to have to repeat yourself over and over again and again. I see that you have altered your profile!

I have seen the frustrations of people who take exception to your scolding and rudeness. Some people are very fragile and don’t have a think skin like me!

The person who has never made a mistake has never made anything!

I will pray that the HS will guide me so that I will do more good and less harm.

 

[Contarini]

I understand your sentiments and I confess there have been occasions that I have shared them. You must realise that although you have thrashed different subjects over and over again there will be new posters who come on board like myself who are not fully mature in their Faith as well as Protestants who are looking to learn and exchanging ideas. You are going to have to repeat yourself over and over again and again. I see that you have altered your profile!

I have not altered my profile for some time. I haven’t even looked at it for a long while.

I have seen the frustrations of people who take exception to your scolding and rudeness. Some people are very fragile and don’t have a think skin like me!

You don’t appear to have a particularly thick skin. This is a discussion board. There are a lot of silly ideas floating around. I am going to call them what they are. I try as much as possible to distinguish between the ideas and the people, something that I would point out you have not done. (Instead of taking issue with what I said, you attacked me personally. I did not do this. I never criticized you as a person–I criticized what you said and I stand by my criticisms.)

It is easy to forget that there are people behind the posts. Thank you for reminding me of this–I’m aware that I often fail in this regard.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Christ did not tell them to do what they said. He said do what they do but don’t do what they do. He spent the whole time condemning those guys, so why would He tell the disciples to be like them? He wasn’t. He was telling them to run from that type of life not join it. He told them not to do what they did because they did not practiced what they taught. That makes it clear that if your religious leaders aren’t practicing what they teach (i.e., the tenants of Christ) don’t join with them. If He had told them to follow those guys He would contradicting Himself.

Here is the Actual Quote from the “New King James Version”
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
You say that Christ did NOT tell his disciples to do what scribes and pharisees said? Please point out how the above text says that.
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
Thus this instruction is to all the people of God at that time, whether they were followers of jesus or not.
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
The Scribes and Pharisees sit upon the seat of Jewish Authority to teach and rule in God’s Name.
3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do,
They are your religious superiors and teachers, therefore obey them in what they teach.
but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
Have you ever heard the old adage from a parent, “Do as I say and not as I do.”?
The admonishment here is to obey the teachings and not the actions of the scribes and Pharisees for God can and does teach through sinful men.
God will punish the bad teacher, not the good and obedient student.

I know of many instances in the Gospel where Jesus condemns the Scribes and Pharisees for bad teaching, but I know no place where Jesus condemns faithful Jews for obeying such bad teaching.

Sure, you can tell me that that is not justification for a Reformation, but it is clearly an order to go against the religious establishment if they aren’t sticking to the truth.

It is clearly an order to be be obedient to the authority that God has placed over us. Not because the Church leaders are perfect, but because they represent God’s Church on Earth. Whether under the Old covenent or the New convenent, the Church Leaders have God’s Authority to Bind and Loose.

Can you point to any other passages in the Bible that would teach it is OK to tear away from the established Church and build a New one?
Any examples of a Group of Jews denouncing the Temple in Jerusalem then building a new one somewhere else and declaring THAT one to the the True Temple?

Peace
James