Why are the Protestants so misinformed with "works"?

[Michael16]

@Hodos, @TULIPed and @chrisjb:

I’ve been doing some thinking this morning.

My family are amazingly malformed Lutherans.

They have a vague belief in God, they believe the Bible as God’s Word, but they believe man created religion and God didn’t. So, they don’t have any strong beliefs about God beyond that “ I believe and I’ll go to heaven as long as I don’t do something so aggrevious that God won’t forgive. “ Oh: They believe that if there was supposed to be one religion; there would be.

There was for 1,500 years. Don’t tell my family that.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I think the problem is really the practical effects of the Protestant Reformation and the mess it left behind. And now we have to live in and it and try to clean it up.

I’m thinking this argument over justification by faith is really pointless in this day and age. This is the 21st century; not the 16th. We’re living in a world where many Christians don’t have strongly formed and held beliefs because of the practical effects of Solas Fide and Scriptura.

I know you Protestants sincerely believe in these Solas and believe you can find them in the Bible. I’m not talking trash on your doctrines; all I’m saying is: Let’s look at the practical aftermath.

Sola Fide has led to nebulous belief in God that results in “ God knows I believe in Him and love Him and it doesn’t matter what I do; God forgives me. “

Sola Scriptura has led to the blasé attitude of one interpretation is just as good as another and it don’t matter. Reducing theology from the Sacred Science to matters of mere opinion.

Even Luther deplored the state of affairs after his revolution because he saw anyone and everyone interpreting Scripture as he/she saw fit.

His revolution against the Magisterium led to the loss of respect and deference to authority to decide, define and declare dogma and the lay faithful accepting it.

With the schisms of the 16th century and brutal wars fought because of the Reformers in that century and the next, and the loss of respect for religious authority; led to the disaster of the Enlightenment that attacked religion in general and now three centuries later, we see the erosion of Christian society devolving into secular moral relativism, atheism and the paganization of Western society.

Heck, in nominally Christian societies we see the acceptance of gay marriage. Even the pagans of the ancient world didn’t allow that! Even they recognized that marriage is between a man and a woman for the sake of family.

 

[Hodos]

My family are amazingly malformed Lutherans.

They have a vague belief in God, they believe the Bible as God’s Word, but they believe man created religion and God didn’t. So, they don’t have any strong beliefs about God beyond that “ I believe and I’ll go to heaven as long as I don’t do something so aggrevious that God won’t forgive. “

That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I don’t see any evidence that this is the case. You see the same in the Catholic community. Case in point, Nancy Pelosi who rejects the Church’s stance on marriage, abortion, God as creator of man and woman, etc. You see apostasy in all faith communities, and always have. You see it written into the New Testament epistles. I think it comes down to two things: 1) man’s willful denial that God is who determines what is right and wrong ala Adam and Eve in the Fall; 2) poor catechesis across the board; and 3) (just thought of a third thing) that with the Peace of Milan in 313, the Church was no longer a persecuted body and for the first time in history many people joined the Church for reasons other than faith.

I know you Protestants sincerely believe in these Solas and believe you can find them in the Bible. I’m not talking trash on your doctrines; all I’m saying is: Let’s look at the practical aftermath.

And I am saying that the problem you are recognizing goes back to Genesis 3. You see the history of Israel replete with apostasy from God’s revelation and command. To blame the Reformation or the clarification of doctrine that arose out of it for apostasy is a polemical argument, not a historical one.

Sola Fide has led to nebulous belief in God that results in “ God knows I believe in Him and love Him and it doesn’t matter what I do; God forgives me. “

The misuse or abandonment of doctrine is not an reproof of the doctrine, but of the people who abandoned it. I can think of similar examples in Roman Catholic history. The whole Pachamama debacle is a perfect example of Roman Catholic doctrine bent out of its original context resulting in grave error.

Sola Scriptura has led to the blasé attitude of one interpretation is just as good as another and it don’t matter. Reducing theology from the Sacred Science to matters of mere opinion.

Again, the abandonment of doctrine, which is primarily what you see in Church bodies who have apostasized, is not reproof of that doctrine. You own faith tradition has its own problems in this regard by the way. People for example openly disregarding Church teaching of marriage and the roles of man and woman and still claiming to be Catholic, even priests and bishops.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos and @TULIPed

Your three points at the beginning of your reply are good; I’ll agree to that. Another good point you made was that apostasy is an old problem endemic from the Old Testament times.

My post was, I’ll agree; not as charitable as I should have been. I’m sorry for being polemic.

Your point about blaming the Reformation and it’s radical rewrite of theology: I’ll have to disagree with you. It opened a Pandora’s box that wrecked the social order and Christian unity carefully preserved, albeit not without schisms and crises that were resolved after all; that characterized Europe for 1,500 years.

I understand that Luther was an unfortunate soul who was wracked with tremendous anxiety for the salvation of his soul. I get it and sometimes I feel sorry for him. Other times, I get so mad at him I can barely think straight. Driven by his anxiety and scrupulosity, he saw his out in one simple mistake in reading comprehension and away we go.

I mean, it opened up an era of persecutions and wars that split Europe down the middle and set the stage for the rise of secularism. Let’s face facts: Because of Sola Scriptura, schism is endemic to Protestantism.

The Church, after the Arian heresy; maintained doctrinal orthodoxy and unity for 1,500 years. Heresy popped up, sure; but the Church always contained it and solved it in the end.

Everything changed after the Protestant Reformation. If the Church remained united and strong; secularism wouldn’t have arisen the way it did in the 18th century.

The main point I was trying to get at it is this: Serious and devout Christians arguing the same old 16th century battles while the world devolves into this amoral relativistic mess; maybe what we should be doing instead is banding together to fight off the hordes of hell corrupting our societies?

In my particular case, I’m thinking what I should do is just live a good Catholic life doing what Jesus told us to do: Love each other as I loved you. I’m sorry for speaking things that don’t build my fellow Christians up. I’m sorry.

 

[TULIPed]

I understand that Luther was an unfortunate soul who was wracked with tremendous anxiety for the salvation of his soul. I get it and sometimes I feel sorry for him. Other times, I get so mad at him I can barely think straight. Driven by his anxiety and scrupulosity, he saw his out in one simple mistake in reading comprehension and away we go.

If the point here is to lay the cause of the Reformation at the feet of one man, I disagree. As does the Catholic Church here:

"But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. "

What blame do you think men in the Catholic Church share in the cause of the Reformation?

Serious and devout Christians arguing the same old 16th century battles while the world devolves into this amoral relativistic mess; maybe what we should be doing instead is banding together to fight off the hordes of hell corrupting our societies?

In my particular case, I’m thinking what I should do is just live a good Catholic life doing what Jesus told us to do: Love each other as I loved you. I’m sorry for speaking things that don’t build my fellow Christians up. I’m sorry.

No need for apologies. As @Hodos said - iron sharpens iron. I’m here because I feel called towards ecumenism, and because debate of this sort forces me to go to scripture, confessions and commentary. But our job ultimately is to love God with all our hearts and strength and - with his power - love our neighbors as ourselves. Our discussions help me with the former, which empowers me to do the latter.

 

[Techno2000]

In other words, you were justified through faith before any works began.

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Matthew 3

 

[Michael16]

@TULIPed

Thank you for your kind words. I deeply appreciate them.

I may be zealous, but I’m not blind. Yes, there were problems in the 16th century Church. Absentee bishops with more than one diocese, ill trained clergy and ill catechized laity, corruption and abuses in practices and discipline. The doctrine, however; was sound. Carefully and faithfully preserved and developed over 1,500 years.

In my historical reading, I’ve discerned a general discontent in the laity with the clergy and Church hierarchy; I think the laity might have been angry with churchmen for not living up to the Apostolic ideals taught by the Church all those centuries.

The Church had finished up the Fifth? Lateran Council in the preceding century; but Popes were distracted and papal authority weakened to where the reforms decreed in that council weren’t adequately put into effect.

That definitely was our faults in the cause of the Reformation.

 

[Hodos]

My post was, I’ll agree; not as charitable as I should have been. I’m sorry for being polemic.

No worries. We all are guilty at times there.

Your point about blaming the Reformation and it’s radical rewrite of theology: I’ll have to disagree with you. It opened a Pandora’s box that wrecked the social order and Christian unity carefully preserved, albeit not without schisms and crises that were resolved after all; that characterized Europe for 1,500 years.

This isn’t an easy question to statement to respond to. The Reformation started way before 1517. We see the beginnings going back to at least the early 1300s, but usually in response to serious doctrinal issues that were never addressed until the Reformation reached a crescendo in the 1500s. That being said, you have three major branches of the Reformation, a conservative branch which encompasses Lutheranism, a more progressive branch which encompasses the Calvinist or Reformed traditions, and the Anabaptist tradition which represented a radical branch. That being said, the social order was not wrecked by the Reformation, that was already well on its way before that, occasioned more by the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (the anti-popes, etc.) in the 1300’s and 1400’s wherein nations and secular rulers were pushing back against the ecclesiastical authorities and as the Renaissance gave birth to the humanism and academic revolution that would result in the Enlightenment. Again, these movements were already well developed by the time of Luther. Luther was actually extremely conservative with regard to politics and spoke out against the peasant’s rebellion in the early 1520s.

The Church, after the Arian heresy; maintained doctrinal orthodoxy and unity for 1,500 years. Heresy popped up, sure; but the Church always contained it and solved it in the end.

I don’t buy this either. Arianism continued to plague the Church off and on for centuries after the Nicene Council, as did other heretical movements such as the Nestorians, Pelagians, etc. Not to mention that the development of the idea of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope resulted in the split of the Church just after the turn of the millennium. The threat of Muslim invasion was probably a far more potent force in maintaining the relative unity of the Church between 600 and 1500 than the Church’s doctrine which became fractionized during the rise of scholasticism as many attempted to combine Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy with the Christian faith, and disagreed vehemently with one another over relevant topics. And you are leaving out the fact that Western Christians were fighting the Eastern Christians around Constantinople under the guise of the Crusades as much or more than they were fighting the Muslims who ended up on the doorstep of Western Europe. Personally, I think it was divine providence between the Muslim threat and infighting in the Holy Roman Empire that allowed for Lutheran doctrine to take root.

 

[Hodos]

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Yeah, as already stated we uphold the necessity for works in the Christian life. You still aren’t justified before God by your works according to Paul. Notice in the passage you quoted (Luke 3) that though John here says that the tree that doesn’t bear good fruit will be cut down, he doesn’t say that your salvation is built upon your ability to bear good fruit. Your works will condemn you, they won’t save you though. The message of John with regard to salvation is that one is coming who is mightier than he who will baptize you with the holy spirit and fire. It is the coming Messiah that provides your salvation. Also notice that in Acts, those who had received John’s baptism and followed his teaching still needed to be baptized and hear the good news about Christ.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

The heresies you’re speaking of, are you meaning the Lollards and the Hussites?

If you are, they’re not considered as part of the Reformation by the academic community. These heresies included Sola Scriptura to be sure and an old heretical doctrine that says a priest can’t confer the Sacraments in a state of mortal sin.

The major heresies of the previous era was Catharism. Arianism was largely defeated and eradicated by the time just after the barbarian invasions, Nestorianism was pushed eastward beyond Byzantium for quite a long time and Pelagianism was gone soon after Saint Augustine. So, your assertion of those heresies’ presence doesn’t bear out.

Both these movements didn’t include Sola Fide; so no; they cannot be included in the Protestant Reformation. It began in 1517 with the posting of the Ninety Five Theses.

As for the branches; I’m already aware of the them.

Papal supremacy was long established before the turn of the millennium; so it wasn’t an issue at that time. The big issue around that time was the Great Schism with the Eastern Church over Palamism, Hesychasm and the Filioque Clause. Papal infallibility wasn’t declared dogma until 1870. So, your statement there doesn’t track.

Between 600 and 1500 the Church was pretty solid with firmly established central authority in the Papacy and his Curia. Platonist philosophy was already an influence in the Early Church, including such men as Saint Justin Martyr employing Hellenistic philosophy to defend the Christian Faith to the pagans and in Saint Augustine’s theology.

Aristotelian philosophy wasn’t a doctrinal problem as much of it is easily compatible with the Christian Faith: Ideas like the Unmoved Mover, Aristotelian virtue ethics come immediately into mind. The main issue within theology during this time was the issue of Averroism; a radical form of Aristotelianism that came from Muslim philosophy and was soundly defeated by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

The Church was vibrant for much of the medieval era helped to weld Europe together as a huge factor for social and cultural cohesion. Muslim invasion, once the Moors were checked at Tours and contained in Spain; wasn’t that big of a factor until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

The Crusades were focused on fighting the Muslims. Yes, there was the sack of Constantinople in 1204; but that was because of a detour caused by Venetian greed and possibly Byzantine court politics. The claim that Christians were fighting Christians is likely to be Protestant revisionist propaganda.

As for Luther and the Muslims; Luther told his followers to not fight in the Imperial armies against the Turks as he believed they were a scourge from God and it would be a sin to fight them. That, and the Emperor had to turn his back on the Protestant problem, which was the infighting you were speaking of; in Germany in order to save Western Europe from the Muslim threat. You can thank the Church and the Holy League and Our Blessed Mother for that. Otherwise, all Christian Europe would have fell. Which in time, Protestant soldiers were found in Turk service against Catholic Europe.

Without the Turks, Luther would have been defeated.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I am aware of the Peasants’ War. Luther wrote a tract catchily titled “ Against the Thieving, Murderous Peasant Hordes “ in which he urged his supporters to “ stab and kill the peasants as there’s nothing more devilish than a rebel. “ Luther supported the princes, knowing he needed their support.

He later said he was the one who killed the peasants, who rebelled invoking Luther and his doctrine; and was the author of it all and God gave him the order to do it.

As for the rise of the scholasticism: The scholastic tradition was fully sanctioned by the Church and deepened theology quite fruitfully.

To answer your assertion on the wrecking of the social order:

Basically, with the Protestant destruction of the Church in the lands that fell to them; they destroyed the ecclesiastical structure and authority that for centuries acted as a counterweight to the secular princes, destroyed monasteries and convents and plundered Church wealth into the hands of the princes and middle class.

The only winners was the secular state and authorities who for years wanted to control the Church in their polities and remove the obstacle to their unfettered power as Lutheran churches and their pastors could easily be brought to heel and put under their thumbs.

I don’t see any evidence in the historical record that Lutheran churches ever acted as effective counterweights to the princes.

 

[BohemianBrother]

I don’t think you really grasp the situation in Europe in the middle ages.

First, Hussites and Lollards can’t be considered protestants mainly because they weren’t present at the Protestation of Speyer.

I cannot find a source for Hus teaching that priests in the state of grave sin cannot validly administer sacraments. On the other hand, he was rather anticlerical, but mostly spoke of moral, earthly authority of both clergy and the state - no one is oblidged to do the will of a clergyman or of a noble, if they command something immoral, or are themselves in the state of grave sin. That is something very different.

Hussites, Lollards and Waldenses can at least be considered proto-protestants, don’t you agree?

I think the Unity of Brethren (the radical, pacifist Hussite faction) maybe taught Sola Fide before Luther, at least it is in the confession of 1535.

Lets not idealize the social order of those times. Simony, anticlericalism, and all the other issues were rife. The peasants, the townsfolk, the nobles, everyone hated the church. The nobles did of course want to steal some property, but there was also a much more practical reason - the prince-bishops of the HRE were their political rivals. Catholic clergy was bought as easily as the Protestant one. The whole situation was a powderkeg, and that explains why those peasant rebellions errupted so easily.

Most clergy truly was corrupted, it is estimated that around 1/4 of clergymen in Germany had concubines. How that was tolerated only illustrates the laxness of the Papacy, which was often bought and sold by the highest bidder, as the office had an enormous amount of secular power. As was the case with the Papal Schisms.

Since at least the times of Waldo, the Church was unable to respond to calls for a higher discipline. The moral decay led to the inevitable loss of any credibility and trustworthiness for the common folk. In many places, it was the secular state that enabled the Catholic faith to survive.

Thank God for Trent and for the Catholic Church to lose much of its secular power. Only then can true faith flourish, otherwise superficiality can take much of its space.

The child abuse crisis of today is a joke compared to what was happening back then. It is understandable that Luther did what he did. He was one of the few people who truly cared and were deeply passionate for the church in times of darkness.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos and @TULIPed

The Protestant causes of the Reformation.

The basic causes of the Protestant Reformation was the work of primarily of Luther with Calvin inspired by Luther and the Anabaptists came out of the woodwork in the ensuing turmoil.

Luther posted his Theses in 1517 and for four years, in which the Church sent Cajetan to charitably correct him ( Luther’s provocations of Cajetan devolved the meeting into a shouting match) and Luther lost his two debates with Johann Eck and never again debated a professional Catholic theologian; tried hard to recover Luther from his heresy until the Diet of Worms in 1521 in which the Church gave him one last chance to repent and abjure his errors.

In my examination of the historical record, Luther seemed incapable of admitting he could and was wrong and everybody who disagreed with him was a heretic and tool of the devil.

Luther refused, left the Diet an Imperial outlaw and excommunicated heretic condemned to death. Kidnapped by men in the service of the Elector Frederick of Saxony, Luther was taken into hiding to a castle, which he called “ his Patmos “ and produced a prodigious corpus of writings that were published and spread all over Germany.

Because of Luther and his writings, the latent powderkeg of dissension against the Church was lit off and exploded. The whole thing uncorked.

Hell was let loose because of one obstinate man.

The Protestant Reformation in Germany reminds me of the French Revolution of 1789 and Keats’ poetic lines: “ Everything falls apart; the center does not hold “ As monasteries and convents were being razed, the Church despoiled, Luther called on the German princes to rise up against the Church, the rise of the Anabaptists that took the city of Munster and was retaken by a combined Catholic/Protestant army in 1534, the Zwickau Prophets arose in the Peasants’ War that was brutally put down with Luther’s support ( He needed the princes. He knew where his bread was buttered. Without them; he’d probably have been killed. ) as the Lutheran princes went to work.

I mean, the whole situation must’ve seemed to loyal Catholics as the end of the world.

 

[Hodos]

The major heresies of the previous era was Catharism. Arianism was largely defeated and eradicated by the time just after the barbarian invasions, Nestorianism was pushed eastward beyond Byzantium for quite a long time and Pelagianism was gone soon after Saint Augustine. So, your assertion of those heresies’ presence doesn’t bear out.

It actually does because it demonstrates a history of doctrinal disagreement initiated within the Church, so it is disingenuous to say the Reformation was this new thing that just cropped up out of nowhere. And the academic community does consider the Lollards and Hussites as early reformation movements that were less successful, primarily due to the lack of widespread publishing and the heavy hand of Church and secular authorities that violently cracked down on them.

Both these movements didn’t include Sola Fide; so no; they cannot be included in the Protestant Reformation. It began in 1517 with the posting of the Ninety Five Theses.

That is not true at all, both the Lollards and Hussites affirmed justification by faith, and this idea began in the mid-50s with the Epistle to the Romans.

As for Luther and the Muslims; Luther told his followers to not fight in the Imperial armies against the Turks as he believed they were a scourge from God and it would be a sin to fight them. That, and the Emperor had to turn his back on the Protestant problem, which was the infighting you were speaking of; in Germany in order to save Western Europe from the Muslim threat. You can thank the Church and the Holy League and Our Blessed Mother for that. Otherwise, all Christian Europe would have fell. Which in time, Protestant soldiers were found in Turk service against Catholic Europe.

Not really, the Lutheran princes in the Holy Roman Empire had pledged their support for Charles the V against the Turks (this is even contained in the Augsburg Confession), but rejected demands that they must recant their doctrinal confessions, and were forced to form a defensive league of princes called the Smalcald League against the threat of military incursion by Charles V against them. Even after the Smalcald League was defeated though, Charles threatened to kill the Lutheran princes if they did not return to the Catholic Church. They again refused, and Charles, realizing he needed the armies of Saxony and other German states to join him against the Turks relented.

Without the Turks, Luther would have been defeated.

Yeah, through violence, he would have. Again, God’s providence.

 

[Hodos]

I mean, the whole situation must’ve seemed to loyal Catholics as the end of the world.

We would say loyal Catholics reformed their doctrine and practices to be more consistent with scripture and to address specific doctrinal concerns and abusive practices that the Church hierarchy refused to address for (on some issues over two hundred years).

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos; I’m just simply appalled.

I’ve been so shocked at what you said in these last two posts of yours that as I write this, I’m still struggling to comprehend what was said.

I’ll begin with the heresies.

The Lollards, Hussites and Waldensians are classed by the academic community as proto Protestants; not Protestants proper. In fact, Wycliffe’s Lollardism was tolerated by secular authorities until a revolt broke out and he no longer had the support and tolerance he previously enjoyed. I’ll admit, I don’t know whether or not they taught faith alone as Luther conceived of it.

The history of dissension in the Church no way supports your thesis that the Reformation started anywhere before 1517. Protestantism proper began as I previously stated.

I have only a high school education and no formal theological training beyond a year of Catechism in RCIA and even I can easily disprove Luther’s mistake in Romans by Scripture alone, common sense and the historical record. No where in Church history, even in the worst heresies; did faith alone as Luther conceived of it arise before Luther.

For the two points I’m still in terrible shock over:

1: In time of great peril, facing an implacable foe with a proven track record of forcibly converting peoples to Islam in the lands they conquered; Luther told his followers to fold their arms and refuse to fight this foe until Charles V caved into them after defeating them in the Schmalkaldic War, fighting the Emperor as the Turks threatened Europe ( While Catholic Europe fought to save Christian Europe, with the Protestant revolution at their backs ) and only then after getting what they wanted; they fought to help save Christian Europe. You can seriously call this God’s Will and defend it?

2: With all the sin, death, evil, misery and horror, chaos and upheaval of the social order, unleashed by Luther’s revolt; you gloss over it and justify it with the comment: “ We would say Catholics reformed their doctrine to be more in line with Scripture. “

The Church was already in line with Scripture that Luther grossly misread.

I thank God for the grace and Christian charity to respond as calmly and reasonably as I have.

All I can say at the end of this statement, Hodos; is:

Are you serious?

 

[Hodos]

The history of dissension in the Church no way supports your thesis that the Reformation started anywhere before 1517. Protestantism proper began as I previously stated.

Your buddy above, as well as the history books I have read such as The Church From Age to Age as an example would differ with you there. Also, my reference was to reformation, not the Protestant movement. The term Protestant was a Catholic term that was used well after the Reformation in response to the fact that Lutherans were again ordered to abandon our faith at the point of a gun and tip of a sword, and when they responded saying, “We protest,” we were then derisively termed Protestants.

The Church was already in line with Scripture that Luther grossly misread.

This would be an opinion on your end that has been in dispute throughout this thread. Since you continue to make personal judgments and pass them off as objective assessment, I am not out of bounds to provide our viewpoint on the matter. If you are shocked, then I suggest you stick to things that are best discussed objectively, or at least one can make a reasonable case based on review the evidence at hand, and that is exegesis of scripture. Otherwise you invite opinion that would not agree with yours. Quite frankly your considerable misrepresentation of Protestants in general, and Luther in particular is growing quite old.

In time of great peril, facing an implacable foe with a proven track record of forcibly converting peoples to Islam in the lands they conquered; Luther told his followers to fold their arms and refuse to fight this foe until Charles V caved into them after defeating them in the Schmalkaldic War, fighting the Emperor as the Turks threatened Europe ( While Catholic Europe fought to save Christian Europe, with the Protestant revolution at their backs ) and only then after getting what they wanted; they fought to help save Christian Europe. You can seriously call this God’s Will and defend it?

Let’s not forget that during several of the Crusades, the Western armies actually fought the Eastern Orthodox armies, that at the time of Luther Charles the V was at war with Philip II (a Catholic king), and then you had the wars in the Papal states. Europe was in danger, and the Smalcaldic League had already offered their armies in service to the Holy Roman Empire only to be called to the Diet of Augsburg to present their confessions, which were refuted (badly) by the Confutation, and then were ordered by Charles V to abandon the confession they had just made. Yeah, I totally see God’s providence, just as I see God’s providence in the rise of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus in their days under God’s sovereign dominion.

 

[po18guy]

As we see in all such “discussions” one can argue against the intellect, but not against the ego.

 

[Hodos]

With all the sin, death, evil, misery and horror, chaos and upheaval of the social order, unleashed by Luther’s revolt; you gloss over it and justify it with the comment: “ We would say Catholics reformed their doctrine to be more in line with Scripture. “

No one is looking the other way at the conflicts of the 1500-1600s. Nor am I justifying them. I am however saying that at the point in history you are discussing Catholic Europe had already had numerous bloody conflicts with one another (Hundred Years War, The Crusades where in at times Western Catholics were fighting Eastern Catholics even sacking Constantinople, bloody conflict between Charles V and Philip the II, the war over the Papal states, etc.). Trying to lay the blame of all of the bloodshed of the High Middle Ages through the Renaissance at Luther’s feet is absurd on its face. This doesn’t even address the conquistadores in America.

 

[TULIPed]

Hell was let loose because of one obstinate man.

Again Michael - not even the Catholic Church says this. I’ve quoted UR before - it wasn’t one man, and it wasn’t one side. Everybody wore blame in the Reformation - as is always the case in a feud, no?

There are 2 sides to every story. If you’re open to both sides, go read Eric Metaxis book on Luther. You can find it here:

Amazon.com

(It’s a NY Times bestseller, so you might disagree with it, but at least it’s well written.). In fact, if you promise me you’ll read it, I’ll buy it for you for Christmas. You can read it, condemn it to hell, tie it to a (small) stake, and then burn it. But at least you’ll have another look at the man and what other things might’ve motivated him (than just, and only Satan).

 

[Michael16]

Hodos,

You’re trying to tell a false narrative and shifting goalposts trying to obfuscate the issue.

If you’re seriously bringing up the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians as reformers; they’re not. Their heresies Luther would have rejected and persecuted. So, they can’t be classed as reformers by you. True, there has been need for reform throughout Church history. To paint the Church as a doctrinaire organization that prized lock step orthodoxy at the expense of allowing false teachings and bad practices to continue is just a false narrative painted by Protestant apologists.

You want to see real reformers in the Church? Check out Saints Bernard of Clairvaux, ( 11th century) Dominic de Guzman ( 13th century ) Catherine of Siena ( 13th century ) who coined the phrase “ Speak truth to power “, Francis of Assisi ( 13th century ) and that’s just to name several medieval saints.

As for Luther, everything I said about him is from the historical record of what he did and said. Including his alteration of Romans 3:28 in his German translation. Which he himself admitted.

Everything I’ve read of the man convinced me that he was far from a Saint that preached the truth of Christ’s Gospel and has no credibility as such.

Protestant came from when Charles V ordered the Mass to be celebrated in every polity in the Empire. They protested. I’ll admit: That’s what we called you guys. Luther preferred Evangelical.

As for Luther’s mistake in Romans: The Church has taught justification by faith from the beginning. I’ve explained to you verse by verse, chapter by chapter how he misunderstood it. You came at me with linguistic analysis in Greek. Any native Greek speaker in the Early Church would have understood it right away if you were right. You tried reading the verse backwards to me; I understood the plain reading.

Only a slew of very unlikely explanations and creative and convoluted exegesis would have to happen to make it work. Face it: Either the Church for 1,500 years made a huge mistake in translation and reading comprehension or a centuries long, massive Church wide conspiracy to deny and conceal the truth from the deluded laity or Luther misread the text.

Every exegesis you came at me with I’m able to shoot down and you’ve stopped trying to debate me.

Now: I made two concrete points and you’re trying to shift goal posts to put me on the defensive and you haven’t answered me.

You justify the mutiny in the face of the Turk?

You justify the chaos, evil and upheaval of the revolution in Germany?