OT forshadowing of Protestantism?


#1

I posted this in another thread, but it was never responded to. Do you think the following is an OT forshadowing of the Protestant rebellion? Doesn’t the complaints of these folks against Moses sound strikingly familiar?

font=Arial[/font]
Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abi’ram the sons of Eli’ab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”

When Moses heard it, he fell on his face; and he said to Korah and all his company, "In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near to him; him whom he will choose he will cause to come near to him.

Num 16:28-33
And Moses said, “Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord. If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD.”

And as he finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split asunder; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men that belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

What do you all think? Legitimate OT case to be made demonstrating the error of the rejection of Divinely appointed authority?

Just something to think about.

DustinsDad


#2

Well DD,
It sure won’t make any brownie points with out Protestant cousins.

I’ve heard several n-C preachers preach on being in submission to the spiritual authorities over you in the church, even when they are wrong. Where was this in 1517, I wonder?

If we have to be in submission and if not are out from under our “cover” then what does that say about all of Protestantism?
Pax vobiscum,


#3

Dear DustinsDad,

quote: DustinsDad

[font=Verdana]What do you all think? Legitimate OT case to be made demonstrating the error of the rejection of Divinely appointed authority?

[/font]

Ah, but you see, Protestants don’t think there is
any “…Divinely appointed authority…” at issue.
AND
The ground has stood steady for 500 years…
and counting.:yup:
Until the ground starts rumbling, I vote “no” on the “forshadowing” !

Best,
reen12


#4

I wouldn’t say foreshadowing Protestantism, but I would say that it demonstrates a human tendency, one instance of which was the Reformation. Another instance of which are Catholic dissidents.


#5

[quote=reen12]Dear DustinsDad,

quote: DustinsDad

Ah, but you see, Protestants don’t think there is
any “…Divinely appointed authority…” at issue.
AND
The ground has stood steady for 500 years…
and counting.:yup:
Until the ground starts rumbling, I vote “no” on the “forshadowing” !

Best,
reen12
[/quote]

Perhaps the earth, is swallowing them up. If you notice how the Protestants seem to be becoming more part of the “world” or becoming more “worldly” then the Catholic church is. While the world excepts protestants for the most part, it rejects Catholicism.


#6

[quote=reen12]Ah, but you see, Protestants don’t think there is
any “…Divinely appointed authority…” at issue.
[/quote]

Well, nor moreso than did the gang coming against Moses anyway. They didn’t think Moses had any authority over them, in their eyes the Lord gave all the chosen that authority - seemingly confusing and equating holiness with authority - and this sounds very Protestant to my ears: “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”

Like these folks in the OT who had a problem with Moses and Aaron being in authority over them, Luther did as well with the authority in the Church.

Anyway, since Luther didn’t get his way on certain theological issues (he didn’t start off attempting to overthrow Church authority - he started off in other areas), he had to justify his subsequent rebellion from the Church - this meant he had to find some way to deny the authority of the Church, hence the introduction of Sola Scriptura.

Unintended consequence for Luther: now everyone is their own authority, since no one has the authority to stand between one person and their own personal interpretation of Scripture. Ever since Luther used the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to justify his split from the Church, other reformers were free to use the same to justify their split from him (Matt 12:30 & Luke 11:23 anyone?)

It’s been said that the problem with the Reformation isn’t that it did away with the pope, it’s that it created too many of 'em :wink:

[quote=reen12]The ground has stood steady for 500 years…
and counting.:yup:
Until the ground starts rumbling, I vote “no” on the “forshadowing” !.
[/quote]

Heheh, I don’t think that’s quite the way it works. “Extreme” measures such as this in the OT, I believe, is God’s way of demonstrating the seriousness of particular sins. And from the “end” of these folks (and the folks with them, if you read on in the chapter), it seems this is serious enough to really stop and think about.

That’s all.

Peace in Christ!

DustinsDad


#7

Hi, DustinsDad,

Thanks for your reply.

quote: DustinsDad

Anyway, since Luther didn’t get his way on certain theological issues (he didn’t start off attempting to overthrow Church authority - he started off in other areas), he had to justify his subsequent rebellion from the Church - this meant he had to find some way to deny the authority of the Church, hence the introduction of Sola Scriptura.

If you’ll be patient, I’d like to offer what truly happened
to Luther, both from my reading of his work * plus
a number of additional sources on him.

Luther was tormented by scrupulosity, which is
considered a form of obsessive-compulsive
disorder in 2005.

While he could be amazingly coarse in speech, he was
also in some ways a sensitive human being.
Between his spiritual torment [which was actually
a psychological disorder expressing itself in
a religious context] and his outrage over the sale
of indulgences…he blew a gasket!

The only way that he could “solve” his troubles
was to come to an understanding that the
emphasis was on what Jesus “did”, not what
he, Martin, “did” [works].


Once he got rolling, there was no stopping him.

Having read enough about scrupulosity, and
read what others experience in this realm, I
know that deep anger can be generated toward
what is seen as the “source” of this torment -
the thought of eternal loss based on our “works.”

You see, a scrupulous person can feel that
much of what they do or think is a sin.
Luther’s relief came when he understood that
it is faith in Jesus that both justifies *and *saves,
not “works.” [You’d might be surprised to see
what Luther actually wrote on “works.”]

From this brief overview, perhaps those caricatures
of Luther that abound, can be seen as a misreading
of what was the experience of a troubled soul.

I’m not defending what he did. I try to understand
why he did what he did.

You know why I took the trouble to read what
Luther *actually *wrote and thought?

Because I have "been there, done that."
The man saved my sanity.
Blessed Assurance.

Be well, DustinsDad,

reen12*


#8

Hello Reen,

Yeah, I’ve read that too about Martin Luther and scrupulosity - that was the internal and initial source of Luther’s problems with the church. I’m not sure how that changes what I stated in my post, but it does give some underlying perspective on why he wanted changes on some theological issues in the first place.

Sola Scriptura still had to be introduced later in order to justify his break away from the authority of the church.

Luther’s relief came when he understood that
it is faith in Jesus that both justifies *and *saves,
not “works.”

That Luther had to leave the church in order to understand that we aren’t saved by our works seems very tragic to me. Luther’s scrupulosity notwithstanding, I still find it perplexing that many folks think the Catholic Church teaches salvation through works.

Here are a couple of good short tracts from this website on the subject for anyone interested:

Reward and Merit
Grace: What It Is and What It Does
Not By Faith Alone

You know why I took the trouble to read what
Luther *actually *wrote and thought?

Because I have "been there, done that."
The man saved my sanity.
Blessed Assurance.

I’m glad his writings helped! Anything in particular you reccommend?

Peace,

Dustinsdad


#9

Dear DustinsDad,

Thanks for your gracious reply.

I’m looking for an online site to recommend, but
in the meantime, you might want to invest some
time in the following article
:
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9603/articles/yeago.html

I find First Things to be a solid publication, well worth
reading.

I actually sped-read my way through the article. The last
sentence in same, demonstates the irony [that I see myself]
in Luther’s theology.

I’ll see if I can find the website I’m looking for,
Best,
reen12


#10

[quote=reen12]Dear DustinsDad,

quote: DustinsDad

Ah, but you see, Protestants don’t think there is
any “…Divinely appointed authority…” at issue.
AND
The ground has stood steady for 500 years…
and counting.:yup:
Until the ground starts rumbling, I vote “no” on the “forshadowing” !

Best,
reen12
[/quote]

These verses coupled with Numbers 16 kinda blows it for them.

Jude 1
8] Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.
9] But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
10] But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.
11] Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, **and perish in Korah’s rebellion. **

**That’s the New Testament folks and it says the Korah’s rebellions still happen. There are many manifestations of this type of rebellion against legitimate authority of which the reformation is but one. **

**Blessings

**


#11

By the way James Akin used Numbers 16 and the mention of Korah in Jude 1 to make the very point as in this thread in his summary in a debate with some Italian guy that I have on tape. Can’t remember the name. It was quite poiniant in my view.


#12

I remember that tape set! I don’t remember who James was debating but the topic was whether the sacamental priesthood was in scripture or not.

If the OT shows people getting smited by God himself for rejecting a God-appointed earthly authority, and then the NT reflecting on that event and even giving it a name “Korah’s rebellion”, it shows that:

  1. God, even in the NT church, does appoint earthly authorities
  2. It is bad and considered rebellious to dissent from that authority.

Martin


#13

This is great. I always thought the first protestants were the followers of Christ who left the Last Supper in John 6 because they didn’t want to each His flesh.


#14

Dear thessalonian,

quote, thessalonian

These verses coupled with Numbers 16 kinda blows it for them.

You mean, “kinda blows it for them” for you, don’t you?:slight_smile:

It’s circular reasoning:

-I believe the RCC is the Church established by Christ.
-It’s leadership today is divinely appointed by Him,
in direct line with the apostles
-Therefore, it “kinda blows it” for those who reject RC authority

You take what is assumed to be true, to argue what
is called on to be proved…circular reasoning.:tiphat:

Here I am in my little wooden boat, attached by a
tenuous line to the stern of the barque of Peter,
waving to you! :wave:

reen12


#15

Reen12- did I mention that you are my favorite? :thumbsup:


#16

Dear ScottH,

:tiphat:…:smiley:

Maureen


#17

[quote=reen12]Dear thessalonian,

quote, thessalonian

You mean, “kinda blows it for them” for you, don’t you?:slight_smile:

It’s circular reasoning:

-I believe the RCC is the Church established by Christ.
-It’s leadership today is divinely appointed by Him,
in direct line with the apostles
-Therefore, it “kinda blows it” for those who reject RC authority

You take what is assumed to be true, to argue what
is called on to be proved…circular reasoning.:tiphat:

Here I am in my little wooden boat, attached by a
tenuous line to the stern of the barque of Peter,
waving to you! :wave:

reen12
[/quote]

Well I guess we all use circular reasoning then since you assume that Rom is not the barque of Peter and base your arguements on what you already believe without proving it all to me beforehand.
Start a thread. I’ll prove that Peter was the first Pope to all but the most obstinate. Then perhaps we can come back here and get on track.


#18

[quote=reen12]Dear DustinsDad,

quote: DustinsDad

Ah, but you see, Protestants don’t think there is
any “…Divinely appointed authority…” at issue.
AND
The ground has stood steady for 500 years…
and counting.:yup:
Until the ground starts rumbling, I vote “no” on the “forshadowing” !

Best,
reen12
[/quote]

The Korah example relates to the issue of authority; not punishment. Further, hasn’t “the ground stood steady for [3,000] and counting” regarding divorce?


#19

Hi, thessalonian,

quote: thessalonian

[quote] Well I guess we all use circular reasoning then since you assume that Rom is not the barque of Peter and base your arguements on what you already believe without proving it all to me beforehand.

[/quote]

I offer you your own quote:

"…since you assume that Rom is not the barque of Peter…
quote, thessalonian

Where, in my post, did I *state *that I do not believe
that. Again, an assumption.

I happens to be true, but it is neither stated nor
implied in my post. [the square of opposition].
I pointed to what you assume to be true.

And, for the record, all faith statements are
assertions, in the logical realm. Mine, yours,
Luther’s…

Logic an be *applied *to these assertions.
Any Christian calls it “faith.” Logic calls
it an assertion.

So, save me time and you energy, in terms
of “prove[ing]” to me that Peter was the first
Pope. It would be assertion…counter-assertion.
Faith is not logic. It may be logical in it’s
conclusions drawn from assertions, but it
is, in the philosophical realm, “truth claims.”

BTW, in all liklihood, I could start a thread
"proving’ that Peter was the first Pope.:smiley:
Once I’ve got my assertions in place,
I’m good to go!

Best,
reen12
godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm


#20

[quote=reen12]Dear thessalonian,

It’s circular reasoning:

-I believe the RCC is the Church established by Christ.
-It’s leadership today is divinely appointed by Him,
in direct line with the apostles
-Therefore, it “kinda blows it” for those who reject RC authority

You take what is assumed to be true, to argue what
is called on to be proved…circular reasoning.:tiphat:

Here I am in my little wooden boat, attached by a
tenuous line to the stern of the barque of Peter,
waving to you! :wave:

reen12
[/quote]

Yes and No. The scriptures and Church Fathers corroborate and support that (1.) the RCC was established by Christ & (2.) JPII was Peter’s successor. Since the scriptures were drafted, prepared and canonized by the Fathers of the RCC. I guess you have us… :>)


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.