The reformation
- Thread starter Rock022
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This bears repeating. Many of the serious greivences the protestants had with the Catholics the catholics no longer hold too. Case in point would be that you can't go buy indulgences anymore.
However since they got on about attacking and murdering each other for the next few centuries there's still a lot of bad blood between the groups even if many of the fundamental objections no longer exist. Many of Luther's thesis no longer apply as they did. The catholic church underwent an internal reformation as well, not just an external one. Power of the pope, saints, and icons seem to be points of continued disagreement. There are also disagreements relating to purgatory, but meh.
The corruption of the church at the time isn't really in question is it? Just look at Pope Alexander VI.
It's not even the first reformation the church had, the 1100's had a pretty major one too, it just didn't cause such a big split.
However since they got on about attacking and murdering each other for the next few centuries there's still a lot of bad blood between the groups even if many of the fundamental objections no longer exist. Many of Luther's thesis no longer apply as they did. The catholic church underwent an internal reformation as well, not just an external one. Power of the pope, saints, and icons seem to be points of continued disagreement. There are also disagreements relating to purgatory, but meh.
The corruption of the church at the time isn't really in question is it? Just look at Pope Alexander VI.
It's not even the first reformation the church had, the 1100's had a pretty major one too, it just didn't cause such a big split.
Constantine "created" Catholicism (a "mixture" of Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism) after 300 A.D.
Nobody was Catholic before 300+ A.D.
.
Nobody was Catholic before 300+ A.D.
.
Constantine pushed for unity in the church, and probably was guilty of over-pushing, but only non-trinitarians should really have a problem with him. He also put out an edict of toleration, which stopped a lot of persecution, including persecution of non-mainstream Christians. He didn't even really care HOW the church was unified, or under what ideal, he just made them come to a council and talk it out and make a decision.
Constantius, his son, did some pretty awful things, but I never hear people talking about him...
Where do people get this stuff anyway?
Considering Luther wanted to throw out some books of the Bible that disagreed with his views, it's not really fair to say that the correct understanding of justification came out of it...
I'm no catholic myself, but you might be overstating that case there.
The important things that came from the reformation is the reformation itself. Corruption was reduced in the catholic church because the higher ups saw that they could not continue as they where, and study of scripture was emphasized in ways it had never been before.
I'm no catholic myself, but you might be overstating that case there.
The important things that came from the reformation is the reformation itself. Corruption was reduced in the catholic church because the higher ups saw that they could not continue as they where, and study of scripture was emphasized in ways it had never been before.
Luther threw out seven books and added a word in the bible. The RC had corruption but it was not all of the church. Saints did many good things for the church. Many focus on a corrupt church but fail to see the chain of events that came before it. There where many christians killed by muslims, the church began to disappear from places because of the many killings. As the church took stance to defend itself in fear of disappearing some people began to see the See of Peter as a powerful chair. Many power hungry people got close to the Pope, some succeeded. But no matter how corrupt some of the clergy be, the Power of Jesus Christ, the second person in the Trinity, God the Son did not let His church give false teachings. This is what is known as infallibility, not that the Pope is Jesus because that would be heresy. They have infallibility when speaking for the church, Jesus power and glory will not let His church teach wrong. If people did bad things it was of their own free will and will be judge accordingly. We know some clergy charged money for indulgences, but the catholic church never teaches this. Will the devil not try to infiltrate the church and make everyone believe they are false? The doctrinal teachings have never changed. The saved by grace that Luther teach is actually a catholic doctrine. Catholics have never believe they are saved by their own works, but this lie has been spread so much and people believe it. Even some catholics have come to believe this false teaching of saved by works.
I like the guy, but Luther was a man of many faults.
Certianly. The saints did ineradicable things for God and in general deserve their status. They lay people are always a mixed bag of sincerity and corruption. At that time the power structure was getting terribly corrupt, but it certainly was not always so. Now there is certainly still corruption, but also many very Godly priests and bishops serving God in true piety.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it right? Many focus on the good things of the reformation but fail to see how time has allowed corruption into their own denominations, often very similar to the worst of RCC corruption.
It is good to point that out. I suppose many of the most sincere Christians would have been on the front-lines. I never thought of it that way before.
Naturally.
And yet we have the likes of Alexander VI. That such a man could be said to be infallible in any state of his life is beyond my suspension of disbelief. Any mans statement will require discernment. Unam Sanctam I could handle if that where still the Churches claim, the 'infallibility' of the 1870's is unpardonable to me. I've read several times that earlier pope's opposed the idea, and it is clear that John XXII would call it madness, as he objected to the inability to call into question his predictors. He went so far as to call such a thing the doctrine of the devil, the father of lies. I'm inclined to agree with him. Given that that itself is a papal bull non-contradiction applies. Either John XXII or Pius IX had to be wrong, and I'm going with John personally. In fact if Pius was right then John was wrong, but John can't be wrong if Pius was right, so Pius must needs be wrong about that one.
It wasn't until the council of Trent that the selling of indulgences for money was forbidden. I suppose it is fair to say that no official stance advocated selling them, the practice was however both common and well known. I will admit that the way in which indulgences where used in Luthers time where not in line with the official stance of the Catholic Church on indulgences (which is actually quite good, they are a form of penance not permission)
The works of penance that where done in Luther's day give rise to 'saved by works'. But of course that never was the official stance there either.
Certianly. The saints did ineradicable things for God and in general deserve their status. They lay people are always a mixed bag of sincerity and corruption. At that time the power structure was getting terribly corrupt, but it certainly was not always so. Now there is certainly still corruption, but also many very Godly priests and bishops serving God in true piety.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it right? Many focus on the good things of the reformation but fail to see how time has allowed corruption into their own denominations, often very similar to the worst of RCC corruption.
It is good to point that out. I suppose many of the most sincere Christians would have been on the front-lines. I never thought of it that way before.
Naturally.
And yet we have the likes of Alexander VI. That such a man could be said to be infallible in any state of his life is beyond my suspension of disbelief. Any mans statement will require discernment. Unam Sanctam I could handle if that where still the Churches claim, the 'infallibility' of the 1870's is unpardonable to me. I've read several times that earlier pope's opposed the idea, and it is clear that John XXII would call it madness, as he objected to the inability to call into question his predictors. He went so far as to call such a thing the doctrine of the devil, the father of lies. I'm inclined to agree with him. Given that that itself is a papal bull non-contradiction applies. Either John XXII or Pius IX had to be wrong, and I'm going with John personally. In fact if Pius was right then John was wrong, but John can't be wrong if Pius was right, so Pius must needs be wrong about that one.
It wasn't until the council of Trent that the selling of indulgences for money was forbidden. I suppose it is fair to say that no official stance advocated selling them, the practice was however both common and well known. I will admit that the way in which indulgences where used in Luthers time where not in line with the official stance of the Catholic Church on indulgences (which is actually quite good, they are a form of penance not permission)
The works of penance that where done in Luther's day give rise to 'saved by works'. But of course that never was the official stance there either.
R
The reformation happened because of corruption and manipulation in the Catholic church. People were not given a Bible they could read in their native tongue. Remember Tyndale was martyred by the Catholics for daring to attempt to make a translation of God's word available to common man. Think of what would have happened had not the reformation happened? Granted I do not agree with many things that also happened on the reform side(Christians killing other christians,just like the catholics did as well)
But I will say this, as a young Catholic. I had questions..Answers were not given. Questions were discouraged. The priest even publically chastized me and a friend in mass for having the nerve to not be 'submissive'. That said. The Catholic church leaves a lot to be desired I believe regarding those who seek answers. I say this in Love Rock, I hope you see this. But whenever any organization who was rooted in keeping God's holy Word away from the common man because we should just believe them when they say they will tell us what it says,that is a dangerous thing that is done.
Seek after Christ, not any denomination. I say that for all christians, even me..At the end of the day, my pastor could let me down, or he could try to tell me truth the best way he can, at the end of the day..I should seek what the Word says to confirm it. That's why i always bring a Bible to church, and seek it out myself. Not wanting to believe its in there simply because its read,quoted or put on an overhead projector for all to see. And that is the problem with many in church(Yes even some protestants)..
We do not seek out the Word ourselves.
But I will say this, as a young Catholic. I had questions..Answers were not given. Questions were discouraged. The priest even publically chastized me and a friend in mass for having the nerve to not be 'submissive'. That said. The Catholic church leaves a lot to be desired I believe regarding those who seek answers. I say this in Love Rock, I hope you see this. But whenever any organization who was rooted in keeping God's holy Word away from the common man because we should just believe them when they say they will tell us what it says,that is a dangerous thing that is done.
Seek after Christ, not any denomination. I say that for all christians, even me..At the end of the day, my pastor could let me down, or he could try to tell me truth the best way he can, at the end of the day..I should seek what the Word says to confirm it. That's why i always bring a Bible to church, and seek it out myself. Not wanting to believe its in there simply because its read,quoted or put on an overhead projector for all to see. And that is the problem with many in church(Yes even some protestants)..
We do not seek out the Word ourselves.
Rauleetoe the invention of the printing press was because the bible needed to be printed faster, the reason for burning bibles and unfortunately killing people was because they wanted to alter God's word. Something Luther did and no protestant screams anti-christ. Imagine if the Pope decides to remove some books from the bible now, non catholic christians would be screaming and protesting the church. Yet they believe Luther was guided by God. The catholic church trough the pope canonized the bible every catholic uses today, the same books canonized near the 400ad. Luther removed 7 count them SEVEN books and added the a word to fit his believe of salvation by faith alone. I say again think of what Luther did to the bible and change the name from Luther to Pope. Your blood pressure might rise up.
Even the first KJV 1611 had all this books. Look at older bibles and see what books they had. The printing press was invented for the sole reason of copying the bible, how many books did the first publicized bible had? It was not until recent that those seven books where taken out. And they began to spread the news that the catholic church added this books. But if that was true, why do older bibles have this seven books. That does not make sense.
Even wikipedia has it. The reason so many people believe faith alone is because Luther changed the word. Can you imagine if the Pope did it? How would you feel?
Luther added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alonethrough faith"[SUP][8][/SUP] The word "alone" does not appear in the Greek texts,[SUP][9][/SUP] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb "alone" was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul's intended meaning.[SUP][10]
[/SUP][SUP]
Link > Luther Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SUP]
Luther added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: "thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alonethrough faith"[SUP][8][/SUP] The word "alone" does not appear in the Greek texts,[SUP][9][/SUP] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb "alone" was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul's intended meaning.[SUP][10]
[/SUP][SUP]
Link > Luther Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SUP]
To be fair none of his changes stuck. Like you pointed out, the apocrypha wasn't removed till long after (and the whole apocrypha was removed, not just those seven {I do so like Bel and the Dragon too }) and no decent translation keeps 'alone' in Romans 3:28
That he wanted to get rid of James and Jude seems worse to me...
That he wanted to get rid of James and Jude seems worse to me...
R
luther never actually threw any books out...and for the books he questioned he could often cite some of the church fathers who doubted them...he could also point to the hebrew texts that didn't include some of them... so it is not as if he suddenly came up with this idea on his own...
in the end he included them all...even the apocrypha...
i don't know if it is accurate to say that corruption was reduced in the roman church...some internal reforms were undertaken...but they doubled down on a lot of corrupt doctrines...
in the end he included them all...even the apocrypha...
i don't know if it is accurate to say that corruption was reduced in the roman church...some internal reforms were undertaken...but they doubled down on a lot of corrupt doctrines...
Yes indeed there was so much controversy as to which books where inspired and real. You have to consider that in those times they has to write by hand. And as this text slowly walked their way to the church intended, people copied the text but not every one could write the same so some text was altered. There were many other books that people wanted in the bible, even some letters from some one of the popes. Indeed we believe the bible is inspired no doubt about it, but which scriptures are inspired are the ones in question. People say the Jews canonized some of their books close to the year 200ad and this is the reason some books should not be in the bible, but the catholic view of it was that the canonization of this Jewish writings came much latter and there is much scriptural reference to those books that were not canonized by the Jews.
Those who make the bible their pillar of truth need to realize that even the bible says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. It has never been about a book, it has always been about relationships not only with God but with everyone else. Jesus told us what the truth is, Love God above all love and love your neighbor as you love your self. Some christians make it love God and God alone and forget their neighbors.
Those who make the bible their pillar of truth need to realize that even the bible says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. It has never been about a book, it has always been about relationships not only with God but with everyone else. Jesus told us what the truth is, Love God above all love and love your neighbor as you love your self. Some christians make it love God and God alone and forget their neighbors.