Did the reformers have legitimate mission?


#1

Jesus sent His Apostles to spread His word, they were therefore sent by authority of God himself. St. Paul also sent Timothy and Titus to help him on his missions to spread the word of Our Lord. They were sent by St. Paul, someone who was given the power by God to send them. By what authority were Luther or Calvin or other reformers sent?

Also, Moses proved his authority, Jesus did also, as did the Apostles by performing undeniable miracles in plain view. This is how God allowed the people of those days to choose them from among the false prophets. Why haven’t Luther or Calvin or other reformers shown ANY such signs while attempting to make the most drastic changes to the Church since its founding? Why should we take their word without a sign as the next man in line can do the same? Which one is right?

bhlincoln
www.protestanterrors.com


#2

[quote=bhlincoln]Jesus sent His Apostles to spread His word, they were therefore sent by authority of God himself. St. Paul also sent Timothy and Titus to help him on his missions to spread the word of Our Lord. They were sent by St. Paul, someone who was given the power by God to send them. By what authority were Luther or Calvin or other reformers sent?

Also, Moses proved his authority, Jesus did also, as did the Apostles by performing undeniable miracles in plain view. This is how God allowed the people of those days to choose them from among the false prophets. Why haven’t Luther or Calvin or other reformers shown ANY such signs while attempting to make the most drastic changes to the Church since its founding? Why should we take their word without a sign as the next man in line can do the same? Which one is right?

bhlincoln

[/quote]

Hi bhlincoln,

Just curious what happens when you apply the same test to anybody in leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. How many miracles has the new pope performed, or the last one?

Don’t forget also, the Bible speaks of counterfeit miracles as well, so be careful with this as a litmus test. It could backfire.

If I recall, when the Reformers were questioned, “Where are your miracles that prove your doctrine?” They responded, “Within the pages of sacred Scripture. Those miracles prove our doctrine.”

Also, I checked your link “Protestant errors.com.” Perhaps looking through the work of both Luther and Calvin on this question would be a helpful study to be added to your site. Much of Calvin’s work is on-line, and Luther’s Works can be found in any good college library.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm


#3

It’s called Apostolic succession! :slight_smile:


#4

No, they didn’t. Once they rebelled against Christ’s Church, they rebelled against Christ. Therefore, they couldn’t have had a legitimate mission. The sad thing is, Luther never intended to start a new church, or brand of Christianity. He just wanted desperately to fix the problems he was seeing, which were only local. So, in that regard, I think he gets “credited” for the Reformation when it didn’t really begin to solidify until Calvin and the others came along. By what authority were they sent? Their own, of course.

JU


#5

Thanks for the response. To your first point, there is nothing that says a Pope or any member of the Catholic Church for that matter has to perform miracles. No one is asking for these miracles to occur, but yet they continue to occur, century after century regardless. Jesus PROVED who He was by His miracles, this way all other preachers of his time speaking in the same way were disregarded and long forgotten. God allowed the Apostles to perform similar miracles (i.e. St. Peter raising Tabitha from the dead) so that the people would believe them and so we all would know their mission was legitimate. The Saints afterwards also did similar miracles not that they had to, but since God allowed them to, it helped us confirm their legitimacy of mission and helped us see what the True Church of Christ really is.
Scripture tells us these signs would occur in Mark 16:17-18:
“And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues.
They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover”.

Yes, Scripture does tell us the devil can do miraculous things. Would you be so bold as to say that all 2000 years of miracles through the Saints (who imitated Christ in every possible way) were all through the devil? That would be just as absurd as saying the Lord casts out devils through the devil.

As for the reformers claiming their miracles are within the pages of Scripture, this is quite ridiculous. Yes we know no one HAS to do miracles, but Moses never held back when signs were REALLY needed, neither did Jesus or the Apostles or Saints thereafter. God allowed them to perform repeated FIRST CLASS miracles so they would be believed. Then the reformers suddenly step up 1500 years after Christ and try and make the most drastic changes to the Church since Christ Himself founded it, and they didn’t show us even ONE signle sign that they had a legitimate mission to do so? Hmmm…

BH

[quote=TertiumQuid]Hi bhlincoln,

Just curious what happens when you apply the same test to anybody in leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. How many miracles has the new pope performed, or the last one?

Don’t forget also, the Bible speaks of counterfeit miracles as well, so be careful with this as a litmus test. It could backfire.

If I recall, when the Reformers were questioned, “Where are your miracles that prove your doctrine?” They responded, “Within the pages of sacred Scripture. Those miracles prove our doctrine.”

Also, I checked your link “Protestant errors.com.” Perhaps looking through the work of both Luther and Calvin on this question would be a helpful study to be added to your site. Much of Calvin’s work is on-line, and Luther’s Works can be found in any good college library.

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm
[/quote]


#6

how do you explain all the miracles that happen in protestant services?


#7

There are two basic categories of miracles; 1) First class miracles or what many call “significant” miracles, which are obvious interventions of God against the laws of nature, and are always astounding, undeniable, and unfakable such as the healings at Lourdes or Jesus walking on water or raising the dead, or other unmistakable miracles we see in writings on lives of the Saints. First class miracles in most cases are witnessed by others or leave undeniable evidence behind, so there is normally no question as to their existence.
2) Second class miracles are smaller miracles that usually occur to people personally, are not usually witnessed by others, and typically do not leave evidence behind for us to use as proof. These “personal” miracles appear to be a way God works through us and gives us direction in life. While second class miracles do occur, in many cases they may appear to have a natural explanation, and in many cases they are difficult to prove since little concrete evidence is left behind. Because of this, it is easily possible for people to claim they experienced a second class miracle when in fact they may not have. In a nutshell, second class miracles are not really that astounding and very difficult to prove. First class miracles are the miracles I refer to, such as what we see in Scripture.

First class miracles have been repeatedly, year after year and century after century, recorded in relation to the Catholic Church or its members (for the last 2000 years). First class miracles are not seen elsewhere. If you feel there are FIRST CLASS miracles that occur in Protestant services or any other non-Catholic services, please present your proof for them as the Catholic Church always has. Thanks

BH

[quote=santaro75]how do you explain all the miracles that happen in protestant services?
[/quote]


#8

[quote=bhlincoln]To your first point, there is nothing that says a Pope or any member of the Catholic Church for that matter has to perform miracles.
[/quote]

Similarly, there is nothing that says the Protestant Reformers had to perform miracles.

[quote=bhlincoln] No one is asking for these miracles to occur, but yet they continue to occur, century after century regardless.
[/quote]

If miracles have continued, they must be judged by the sole authority of Scripture to judge whether they be good or evil. If they confirm teachings and practices that do not conform to the testimony of Scripture, they come from a different source than the Holy God. The key word is “if”.

[quote=bhlincoln] Jesus PROVED who He was by His miracles, this way all other preachers of his time speaking in the same way were disregarded and long forgotten. God allowed the Apostles to perform similar miracles (i.e. St. Peter raising Tabitha from the dead) so that the people would believe them and so we all would know their mission was legitimate.
[/quote]

I believe that the miracles of the New Testament confirmed the voice of God, and His special miracle of inscripturation. They proved God was speaking. The New Testament was written as a result. Thus, the miracles were like the bells of a church service, announcing the service was to begin. But when the service has begun, the bells stop ringing.

[quote=bhlincoln] The Saints afterwards also did similar miracles not that they had to, but since God allowed them to, it helped us confirm their legitimacy of mission and helped us see what the True Church of Christ really is.
[/quote]

The miracles of the New Testament confirm the doctrines I believe in, and I don’t have to guess whether or not they were good or evil miracles, because they confirmed the voice of God. I need no other miracles than those God has given his church: those that proved who Christ was, and those that prove he has spoken, and that is His gospel has been proclaimed. Calvin points out,

“Mark tells us (Mark 16:20) that the signs which followed the preaching of the apostles are wrought in confirmation of it; so Luke also relates that the Lord “gave testimony to the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done” by the hands of the apostles, Acts 14:3.) Very much to the same effect are those words of the apostle, that salvation by a preached gospel was confirmed, “the Lord bearing witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles,” (Hebrews 2:4.)”

[quote=bhlincoln]Yes, Scripture does tell us the devil can do miraculous things. Would you be so bold as to say that all 2000 years of miracles through the Saints (who imitated Christ in every possible way) were all through the devil? That would be just as absurd as saying the Lord casts out devils through the devil.
[/quote]

Yes I would be so bold. Calvin points out,

“Magicians and enchanters have always been famous for miracles, and miracles of an astonishing description have given support to idolatry: these, however, do not make us converts to the superstitions either of magicians or idolaters. In old times, too, the Donatists used their power of working miracles as a battering-ram, with which they shook the simplicity of the common people. We now give to our opponents the answer which Augustine then gave to the Donatists, (in Joan. Tract. 23,) “The Lord put us on our guard against those wonder-workers when he foretold that false prophets would arise, who, by lying signs and divers wonders would, if it were possible deceive the very elect,” (Matthew 24:24.)”

[quote=bhlincoln]As for the reformers claiming their miracles are within the pages of Scripture, this is quite ridiculous. Yes we know no one HAS to do miracles, but Moses never held back when signs were REALLY needed, neither did Jesus or the Apostles or Saints thereafter. God allowed them to perform repeated FIRST CLASS miracles so they would be believed. Then the reformers suddenly step up 1500 years after Christ and try and make the most drastic changes to the Church since Christ Himself founded it, and they didn’t show us even ONE signle sign that they had a legitimate mission to do so? Hmmm…
[/quote]

Make up your mind. First you state that no one in your church has to do miracles, then you say the Reformers have to do miracles. To use your own word, I find this blatant contradiction within your own argument “ridiculous.”

Regards,
James Swan
ntrmin.org/rccorner-reformation.htm


#9

[quote=bhlincoln]Jesus sent His Apostles to spread His word, they were therefore sent by authority of God himself. St. Paul also sent Timothy and Titus to help him on his missions to spread the word of Our Lord. They were sent by St. Paul, someone who was given the power by God to send them. By what authority were Luther or Calvin or other reformers sent?

Also, Moses proved his authority, Jesus did also, as did the Apostles by performing undeniable miracles in plain view. This is how God allowed the people of those days to choose them from among the false prophets. Why haven’t Luther or Calvin or other reformers shown ANY such signs while attempting to make the most drastic changes to the Church since its founding? Why should we take their word without a sign as the next man in line can do the same? Which one is right?

bhlincoln
www.protestanterrors.com
[/quote]

Luther was “sent” on his own authority. His complaints were legitimate- his actions were not. Luther found problems within the Church. His answer when rejected by the Church theologically, was to start his own. Abuses of money garnering and the such like are not necessarily theological. If the local Bishop wastes the diocesan money on lousy art work, it simply does not require a brand new religion. If some of the preists today are found to be child molesters, it does not require someone to found a new Church. So yes, Luther’s complaints were very,very valid. What he did about it was completely invalid. As far as Calvin goes- I wouldn’t have the faintest idea.


#10

My priest said Luther started out with the right idea—speaking out against abuses taking place in the church at the time. But he said when Luther rejected the sacraments and the heirarchy of the church, that was when he went too far.


#11

[quote=PiusXIII]My priest said Luther started out with the right idea—speaking out against abuses taking place in the church at the time. But he said when Luther rejected the sacraments and the heirarchy of the church, that was when he went too far.
[/quote]

Uh… Luther didn’t reject the sacraments. (???)

O+


#12

[quote=TertiumQuid]Similarly, there is nothing that says the Protestant Reformers had to perform miracles.

[/quote]

Yes, but the fact is, we NEVER see first class miracles occurring in the Protestant Church, but they REPEATEDLY occur in the Catholic Church century after century. There’s nothing that says they have to and no one is insisting on them, but when God keeps sending undeniable, unfakable miracles through the Catholic Church, it is a sign from God.

Matt 13:58 - “And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.”

Please provide the source of your information that miracles must be judged by authority of Scripture. This is your opinion and is not in Scripture. When St. Peter raised Tabitha from the dead in Acts 9, you tell me how you judge this “by the sole authority of Scripture”? It’s a first class sign from God so it was clear to the people St. Peter’s mission was legitimate, plain and simple, it has zero to do with Scripture.

So you’re REALLY trying to state miracles stopped after Scripture was closed?? There is overwhelming historical documentation that opposes your opinion here. We have 2000 years of writings on lives of the Saints absolutely overflowing with first class miracles which people of all beliefs have witnessed and studied. Funny how these incidents REPEATEDLY occurred through them and yet we have zero occurring through the reformers or after them. Look at the incorruptibles alone; one of the Catholic Church’s most blatent proofs of first class miracles. Look at the repeated first class healings at Lourdes for the last 140+ years. The Lourdes Medical Bureau is open to doctors of ANY belief and even they all attest to them. Your statement is groundless.

As I just mentioned, we have 2000 years of first class miracles that God chose to send to confirm his Church. Proof of many of them are on display all over Europe (i.e. the incorruptibles, eucharistic miracles etc). You try to limit miracles to Scripture and when they continually occurr after Scripture closed, you choose to look the other way. Go take a look at these things, they are a plane ticket away…

Our Lord didn’t say this in Scripture for nothing:
Mark 16
"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover."

Scripture tells us those who believe will experience signs! Do you not believe this? You along with Calvin ACTUALLY try to group all of these signs as magic or the devil simply because these things don’t occur in your Church. We see Saints imitating Our Lord to perfection and they just happen to perform first class miracles; then we see people like Calvin who blatently deny what these Saints have always practiced and recommended, and if we look at Calvin’s writings they contain vulgarities unlike any Saint. No wonder God has never given us a sign through Calvin that his mission was from God.

Question for you:
Please explain the incorruptibles from your perspective.

You missed my point. Whenever God was revealing the truth, He never held back in performing miracles through his messengers (Moses, Jesus, Apostles, Saints). God didn’t HAVE TO do this but chose to so we can easily see who they are among false prophets. If the reformers are going to try and step up and change the Church Christ founded, a change bigger than any other since the founding of the Church itself, that would put them on the same level as the Apostles. Yet they don’t compare in ANY way. You bet they better prove their mission just like God’s other messengers or they are not to be believed. Otherwise I could claim the same inspirations as Calvin right now and no one would have any way that my inspirations were from God. Then where would we be? We’d be where we are today, with thousands of opposing Protestant denominations all declaring they have it right.

BH
protestanterrors.com


#13

You make a good point. Yes, there are always problems that occur in the Church as it contains human members and that is expected. Looking at the history of the Church, when there were problems, the Church called together General Councils and corrected them. NO ONE dared take it upon themselves to call their own Council and make their own decisions. This is clearly what the reformers did.

BH

[quote=Imconfused]Luther was “sent” on his own authority. His complaints were legitimate- his actions were not. Luther found problems within the Church. His answer when rejected by the Church theologically, was to start his own. Abuses of money garnering and the such like are not necessarily theological. If the local Bishop wastes the diocesan money on lousy art work, it simply does not require a brand new religion. If some of the preists today are found to be child molesters, it does not require someone to found a new Church. So yes, Luther’s complaints were very,very valid. What he did about it was completely invalid. As far as Calvin goes- I wouldn’t have the faintest idea.
[/quote]


#14

There were 7 Sacraments in the Church for the first 1500 years after Christ. Luther did not have 7, because he rejected several of them.

BH

[quote=O.S. Luke]Uh… Luther didn’t reject the sacraments. (???)

O+
[/quote]


#15

Paul said to Timothy whom he sent,
2 Tim 2:2
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

Paul who was sent by Jesus, sent Timothy and entrusted him to send to other men to be able to send others. Not just going out on their own accord by their own authority.
This is a very good question to ask, did the reformers have legitimate mission? or did they strike out on their own, by their own accord?

God Bless
Scylla


#16

[quote=scylla]Paul said to Timothy whom he sent,
2 Tim 2:2
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

Paul who was sent by Jesus, sent Timothy and entrusted him to send to other men to be able to send others. Not just going out on their own accord by their own authority.
This is a very good question to ask, did the reformers have legitimate mission? or did they strike out on their own, by their own accord?

God Bless
Scylla
[/quote]

Just a follow up question-

Do modern day self proclaimed ex-Protestant Roman Catholic apologists strike out on their own, by their own accord? Do they have miracles that validate their ministries? Are their ministries sanctioned by Rome, or are they simply theological cowboys?

Regards,
James Swan


#17

As an answer to your question, these ex-Protestant Roman Catholic apologists are not striking out on their own, I don’t see them starting new churches. We are all called to evangelize, some in their conversion are more zealous and better equipped as they have been down the road of conversion.
We can all have our own ministry in the Catholic Church and be witnesses to Christ. Look at the www.biblechristiansociety.com is this a different church? or is it his ministry in which he brings people to unity with the Catholic Church.

The difference between people like Chuck Smith and a Catholic apologist is one is bringing about unity, one is striking out on his own (causing division) without legitimate mission and starting a separate church.

God Bless
Scylla


#18

After looking at the thread, to help make myself clear, you can substitute Chuck Smith with Martin Luther, or John Calvin or John Smyth, etc.

God Bless
Scylla


#19

[quote=scylla]As an answer to your question, these ex-Protestant Roman Catholic apologists are not striking out on their own, I don’t see them starting new churches. We are all called to evangelize, some in their conversion are more zealous and better equipped as they have been down the road of conversion.
We can all have our own ministry in the Catholic Church and be witnesses to Christ. Look at the www.biblechristiansociety.com is this a different church? or is it his ministry in which he brings people to unity with the Catholic Church.

The difference between people like Chuck Smith and a Catholic apologist is one is bringing about unity, one is striking out on his own (causing division) without legitimate mission and starting a separate church.

God Bless
Scylla
[/quote]

And I agree with this. As many have noted, Protestantism multiplies by division, which shows how much disunity Protestantism has caused rather than unity in the Church.


#20

[quote=TertiumQuid]Just a follow up question-

Do modern day self proclaimed ex-Protestant Roman Catholic apologists strike out on their own, by their own accord? Do they have miracles that validate their ministries? Are their ministries sanctioned by Rome, or are they simply theological cowboys?

Regards,
James Swan
[/quote]

I don’t see how an ex-Protestant converting to a 2,000 year old faith that came 1500 years before the one in which they were raised is “striking out on their own”. This is what we refer to as “coming home”.

Also, could you please define “theological cowboy”?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.