Part of the problem is in the line I bolder: others did not continue "The Reformation ". They started their own. There isn’t one reformation from which all movements spring. Calvin was never a Lutheran. King Henry was honored by the pope for his condemnation of Luther. Campbell is as related to Luther as he is to Rome.Agreed, they are not Christian. And, certainly, they are not heirs to Protestant theology.
Perhaps it is more of a spirit, the idea of reform inherited from the Reformation. I have a book about Lutheranism written by a Lutheran, and it discusses the Reformation, and says it is important to know when the reform is complete. That is, when to stop reforming. That book is right, it is very important, and Lutherans obviously feel that the reform is complete with them. However, and this is the point, others continued the Reformation. [Reforming keeps going on, with different groups stopping along the way, but others continuing, demonstrated by the proliferation of denominations.
In Europe, Protestants had the spectre of inherited Catholicism to protest or reform against, but in this Protestant country, what they had was Protestantism itself, to protest or reform against, since that is the Protestant spirit or mindset, to protest and reform. When to stop?
Hence the cults, as Walter Martin called them. They were founded by those who had Protestant upbringings, but decided what they had been taught needed reforming, and so started up new, non-Protestant, and pseudo-Christian religions.
Amen. Anglicans sometimes talk about the “provisionality” of the Church of England. A separate Anglican identity shouldn’t exist; the aim is to hold the Catholic faith in common with the whole Church. It will, God willing, when abuses and unorthodoxy in every corner come to an end.That, and a step further ( for me personally): the Reform is not complete without reunification. This is why ecumenical dialogue is so important, and why I believe, more and more, that the tone of apologetics needs to mirror that of theologians ( not saying that those on this thread aren’t).
Jon
It’s almost like you’re not reading the posts of people you disagree with…Where did Luther get this authority to start a new church with new theology? And why don’t the other denominations have the same authority?
The point is, if one man can claim to do this, anyone can. And they clearly do.
I don’t know any church that has perfect members, so everyone has authority to start anew? No. Why? None of these were appointed by Jesus.
Lastly - look up Johannes Bugenhagen - Luther’s surrogate. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
If you look up Luther and his surrogate, you can see that the reformers and their heirs are not in any position to justify a protest based on fingerpointing about behaviors.It’s almost like you’re not reading the posts of people you disagree with…
I get it. Yes, others started their own reformations. True, they weren’t the same Reformation, but different and went on to different directions and purposes.
Part of the problem is in the line I bolder: others did not continue "The Reformation ". They started their own. There isn’t one reformation from which all movements spring. Calvin was never a Lutheran. King Henry was honored by the pope for his condemnation of Luther. Campbell is as related to Luther as he is to Rome.
Jon
(1) People like Jon & co. don’t need to be told to look up the likes of Luther and Bugenhagen. By all means disagree with his theology, but don’t underestimate your interlocutors’ grip of the history behind these controversies.If you look up Luther and his surrogate, you can see that the reformers and their heirs are not in any position to justify a protest based on fingerpointing about behaviors.
Beyond that, he appointed himself, as does every denomination.
I see an inherent inconsistency in the “necessity of reformation” argument based on the history. Otherwise, it was either discounted or ignored.(1) People like Jon & co. don’t need to be told to look up the likes of Luther and Bugenhagen. By all means disagree with his theology, but don’t underestimate your interlocutors’ grip of the history behind these controversies.
(2) As I intimated, our posts have already detailed the mistake you’re making. You’re making a logical misstep in thinking that the Lutheran, working from Lutheran premises, can’t justify Luther’s reformation and condemn others. You can attack those Lutheran premises (i.e. say that Luther had no right whatsoever to break from the Church), but you can’t accuse Lutherans of inconsistency on this; I’ve already spelled out why their position - whether true or untrue - is internally consistent.
Ok, show me.I see an inherent inconsistency in the “necessity of reformation” argument based on the history. Otherwise, it was either discounted or ignored.
I can see another inconsistency based on lack of authority
There is a premise that Luther was justified due to necessity of reformation. This theory must put forth that the Catholic Church needed a reform due to pervasive corruption, that Luther and Bugenhagen were the people who could eradicate corruption, that they had the moral superiority to accomplish the task, and had the authority to do so.Ok, show me.
Show me my logical inconsistency. Spell out where a premise contradicts another premise, or where a conclusion doesn’t follow from a premise. You don’t get to just assert an inconsistency when I suspect that you simply think that a premise is untrue.
Which idea was that?I get it. Yes, others started their own reformations. True, they weren’t the same Reformation, but different and went on to different directions and purposes.
However, these others inherited the idea of reform, and this spirit, this idea and acceptance of the legitimacy of this idea continue to the present day.
The men that first claimed to do this were Catholic bishops.Where did Luther get this authority to start a new church with new theology? And why don’t the other denominations have the same authority?
The point is, if one man can claim to do this, anyone can. And they clearly do.
I don’t know any church that has perfect members, so everyone has authority to start anew? No. Why? None of these were appointed by Jesus.
Lastly - look up Johannes Bugenhagen - Luther’s surrogate. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
It is simple unless you’re protesting against it. Then it quickly becomes complex.The men that first claimed to do this were Catholic bishops.
The claim of universal jurisdiction
The claim of the Filioque
The claim of indulgences
Without a truly ecumenical council for these and others. IOW, no authority.
By what authority did Catholics teach Occam and Biel as Catholic teaching during luther’s time, and was it doctrine or not?
The issue of authority is not so settled or simple as some may think, and some might say that Luther was simply following Rome’s example. But then, that’s not the topic of the thread.
Jon
The only protest I’ve participated is the one against the HHS Mandate, right along side my protesting Catholic siblings. That is, after all, the meaning of “the protest”. It was the formal protest against the civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529.It is simple unless you’re protesting against it. Then it quickly becomes complex.
Ok.We’re going round in circles here, so let’s be clear.
The Lutheran can say something along the lines of:
Reform and, if necessary, revolt against normal authority in the Church of God, is permissible if and only if that authority is so corrupt that Christian doctrine and praxis deteriorate to the point at which the Word of God is not properly preached and/or the Holy Sacraments are not reverently celebrated.
Let’s be clear that we are only speaking of Lutherans here, since you said our communion. The answer is yes. For example, the liberal synods are becoming so corrupt in social teaching that this Christian is willing to stand up and say so. The synod I belong to is not corrupt in this area, but a heterodox practice, which is contrary to the doctrine of the Church (CA Article XIV) is now being permitted. And I am standing up against it! And have been doing so for over a year now. I have taken it to the Church, which is what I’m supposed to do.Ok.
And they would then permit the same for any Christian to do the same to their communion today?
I suppose he is permitted his own personal views on this?Then he misunderstands the very meaning of the term.
Jon
Egg-zactly.Where did Luther get this authority to start a new church with new theology? And why don’t the other denominations have the same authority?
How much corruption is permitted and how much is intolerable and therefore one gets the green light to “revolt”?We’re going round in circles here, so let’s be clear.
The Lutheran can say something along the lines of:
Reform and, if necessary, revolt against normal authority in the Church of God, is permissible if and only if that authority is so corrupt that Christian doctrine and praxis deteriorate to the point at which the Word of God is not properly preached and/or the Holy Sacraments are not reverently celebrated.
The idea of reform. Maybe the others didn’t inherit it. Maybe they borrowed it, or stole it, or appropriated it.Which idea was that?
Jon