What has happened to the doctrines of the protestant reformation?

[Willie-T]

Jesus didn't slide. All he did was make the folks decide which one didn't sin to prepare properly who got that stone to throw. (There was preparation needed before stone throwing, but in their haste to find someone who sinned in a way they did not, they forgot that part.) And healing on the Sabbath isn't breaking The Law. It was breaking the new-and-improved-jewish-construct posing as the Law.

If Jesus slid, he sinned. If he sinned, that cross was wasted pain and energy.

He "slid" all the time, according to the historically accepted and honored (almost, worshiped) traditions that they followed... just as many of us follow the time-honored traditions we grew up believing were "church."

 

[Willie-T]

We work hard enough to get it right that we're still arguing over deaconess, tongues, and did God plan Jesus to die before or after starting the universe? We work hard on getting it right, until we get it right. Most of the rest of the time, we argue because we don't know for certain if we got it right. The arguing is "we ain't right yet." lol

(Ha! Maybe that explains why I belong in this denomination We're all obsessive. lol)

Yet, right here on this forum, how many people let you know all the time that they KNOW what is right.... and that just about everyone except them has missed it? LOL

 

[crossnote]

Well, I am particularly fond of the first 300 years of Christianity over the current period in discussion, but that's another thread. My father was a member of the Anglican Communion, and my mother was Jewish, so you can say, I have had quite the upbringing, not to mention, my weekends were full of synagogue and a typical Anglican setting.

I have always been interested in studying the histories ideas, especially in the realm of philosophical/theological development and thought.

The prosecution was by the hands of the Roman catholic church. When it's head reared itself back into the Church of England, it was time to move. Remember, the debate of the 1500 really is re-debating the discussion between Augustine and Palgius.

And today, we are still having that same discussion, but other devices are moving in.

Remember, true atheism, didn't develop until the age of reason, prior to that, everyone has an understand of an overall diety, even the historical atheists, who didn't believe in the Gods of their city. So the historical church is very relevant.

mother was Jewish? The Reformers tended towards Amillennarians not exactly a Zion friendly group (there are some).
Maybe you shoud stick with us dumb Evangelical/dispy types . LOL

 

[calvinsx76]

I'd argue that with some of the people you put in that list, you jump from one end of the spectrum with Roman Catholic doctrine, to the other end of the spectrum. Granted, I do not include Roman Catholicism into any branches of Christianity, but people who leave the clutches of Roman Catholicism oftentimes jump to the other end of the spectrum and fall into something that is equally wrong.

Most of the people you mention are very far removed from Roman Catholic teachings which are heretical. It's hard to take your point seriously here. Perhaps you'd like to revise your statement?

The are removed from the Roman Catholic Institutions and outward practices, but their understanding of Justification mirrors that of Rome..there teaching is more inline with an infused righteousness, not an imputed righteousness, it's a big difference. In addition, their understanding of sin, Election, Free will all follow Rome's historical view. Those issues are at the heart of the gospel. James Arminius and John Wesley were not Roman Catholics, but their views mirrored that of Rome in terms of Justification and the salvation of Man. Many of prominent leaders are more Pelagian in their views, and take on key Aanabaptist postions.

 

[calvinsx76]

mother was Jewish? The Reformers tended towards Amillennarians not exactly a Zion friendly group (there are some).
Maybe you shoud stick with us dumb Evangelical/dispy types . LOL

True, but I do have my Anglican influences through my father.

Lol. Good point though.

 

[garee]

Let's not idealize the Reformers any more than the Church Fathers.
They had some agreements in the 5 Solas but vehemently disagreed over the Sacraments/Church-State relationship etc.
Though the Anglicans have a nice liturgy, I never thought their 39 articles was much to write home about.
Let's go back further than Calvin/Luther/ Melancthon and even the Church Fathers...let's get back to Paul, Peter, John, Luke etc..

That’s a great point. The first century reformation is an exact replica of any reformation . That is if the reformation is of God and not of men. What do the scriptures infallibly inform us as God witness according to his interpretation of the events as they unfolded? He was the one who was there doing the work of moving men to both will and do His good pleasure.

 

[hornetguy]

I've read plenty of the Reformers works especially from the Lutheran and Reformed side. But what's that prove?
I take what accords to Scripture but spit out the rest. They are not idols.

Yes.... you said that much more clearly than I did.

 

[Yet]

the protestant faith seems to have lost its identity. the contributions of John Calvin, Martin luther, Thomas Cranmer, and Augustine seem to have faded away over the last 200 years.

growing up in the Anglican communion, I feel like the protestant churches has lost it sense of history and teachings, and replaced it with a dumb down version of Christianity.

I feel like church leaders of todays need to be reeducated in the faith.

thoughts? what are we really learning at churches today?

What are folks learning? A lot! Ever learning they are but never coming to the knowledge of the truth...the truth of His 'body' and His desire to operate through each member in the assembly. That was jettisoned 1700 years ago for the cleric system.