Protestants reforming ?


#1

Hi I was thinking now obviously todays Protestants are differnt from the 1500s etc were they reforming against the teaching or the people who were abusing the church and power ?
Also below I posted a link to a YouTube clip and saw what they did ?

youtube.com/watch?v=un2qxIlqLP8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Thanks chuck


#2

I am not sure what the point of the link is but it appears to mock confession and made with that intent. To answer your question, protestantism has split off in about 20,000 different churches, denominations and view points since the 1500. The splintering of protestantism shows the fallacy of sola scripture (and the other sola's) in that people read different things in the Bible, then build a church or denomination around it. If you are serious about learning about the Catholic Church and what it teaches, I would not go to youtube to get your information . The video is made to mock Catholic church in the middle ages. It is inaccurate and false and sad.


#3

I think it was ment to show corruption in the church and what they did so they abused their power so the reformers were reforming against the curruption in the church not the teaching? But it's not like that now obvousily ! Lol


#4

[quote="Chuck1, post:1, topic:294538"]
Hi I was thinking now obviously todays Protestants are differnt from the 1500s etc were they reforming against the teaching or the people who were abusing the church and power ?
Also below I posted a link to a YouTube clip and saw what they did ?

youtube.com/watch?v=un2qxIlqLP8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Thanks chuck

[/quote]

The Lutheran view of sola scriptura was not meant to undermine the church (the body of Christ) but to ensure that Tradition was kept pure. Some would say that the Lutheran view of sola scriptura was more comparable to prima scriptura. The Lutherans (then and now) could not have imagined the bible pulled away from the creeds or early church councils. This is why Traditional protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans are much more in agreement with Roman Catholics then the modern baptoevangelicals. As far as we are concerned Roman Catholics are doing a much better job. Sadly, many protestants today have decided to reinvent the wheel. They are a long way from the early reformers.


#5

[quote="JPeter, post:4, topic:294538"]
The Lutheran view of sola scriptura was not meant to undermine the church (the body of Christ) but to ensure that Tradition was kept pure. Some would say that the Lutheran view of sola scriptura was more comparable to prima scriptura. The Lutherans (then and now) could not have imagined the bible pulled away from the creeds or early church councils. This is why Traditional protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans are much more in agreement with Roman Catholics then the modern baptoevangelicals. As far as we are concerned Roman Catholics are doing a much better job. Sadly, many protestants today have decided to reinvent the wheel. They are a long way from the early reformers.

[/quote]

It is a good thing that so many lutherans and anglicans are coming home to the Church. I hope someday you will find yourself coming home to the Catholic Church as well my friend. God be with you!


#6

[quote="robwar, post:2, topic:294538"]
I am not sure what the point of the link is but it appears to mock confession and made with that intent. To answer your question, protestantism has split off in about 20,000 different churches, denominations and view points since the 1500. The splintering of protestantism shows the fallacy of sola scripture (and the other sola's) in that people read different things in the Bible, then build a church or denomination around it. If you are serious about learning about the Catholic Church and what it teaches, I would not go to youtube to get your information . The video is made to mock Catholic church in the middle ages. It is inaccurate and false and sad.

[/quote]

Is it 20,000 or 40,000? some Catholics say it upwards of 50,000. I wish you would make up our minds!:shrug:


#7

[quote="Prosmith, post:6, topic:294538"]
Is it 20,000 or 40,000? some Catholics say it upwards of 50,000. I wish you would make up our minds!:shrug:

[/quote]

It depends what you are considering because there are a lot of independent churches out there as well as "ministries" or so called para-church groups that do a lot of teaching. If you are lumping all of these and then all the subgroups and splits in different denominations. Look at Lutheranism, there is Missouri, Wisconsin, American, ECLA. Look at Methodist,
There is United, Free, Weslyan, etc. In Presbyterian, there again are a bunch of splits and subgroups. The Anglican is about ready to fall apart too. All of these claim sola scripture, the mile stone of the reformation, all of these can't be true and end up teaching and practicing very different and conflicting beliefs. I also forgot Baptist and how many divisions they have.
It is misinformation that the early reformers of the reformation just wanted to clean up the Catholic church from corruption in practice. Also they all did not get along. There were some pretty bitter divisions between them and how they read the Bible. Luther himself once said that he got rid of one pope but made 100 more. That video was made to mock confession and misinform that payment was expected to confess and get absolution for sin. This is untrue.


#8

[quote="JPeter, post:4, topic:294538"]
The Lutheran view of sola scriptura was not meant to undermine the church (the body of Christ) but to ensure that Tradition was kept pure. Some would say that the Lutheran view of sola scriptura was more comparable to prima scriptura. The Lutherans (then and now) could not have imagined the bible pulled away from the creeds or early church councils. This is why Traditional protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans are much more in agreement with Roman Catholics then the modern baptoevangelicals. As far as we are concerned Roman Catholics are doing a much better job. Sadly, many protestants today have decided to reinvent the wheel. They are a long way from the early reformers.

[/quote]

I think Luther did start out to reform. What happen is that when he was called into question the things he was teaching, he dug in his heals and split off from the Church. (he was excommunicated) Luther did have a problem with authority, he did have a terrible childhood with an abusive father. Luther focussed a lot of his anger on the Pope which at the time was not a great example of holiness. Some of Luther's own angst about faith and works and being good enough seems to carry over into his "faith alone". The things Luther ended up teaching such as faith alone, sola scripture, church authority in teaching are not taught from the early counsels of the church and that is what got him in trouble. Luther wanted to gut the Bible by removing James and Revelation, he was talked out of it. With the Anglican communion ordaining women and homosexuals, they certainly are not in line with Church history and counsels. Luther did remove 7 books that were approved from early church councils. Maybe he thought he was trying to reform go back to original so called Christianity but the results is that he reinvented the wheel which as not stopped since then.


#9

=robwar;9626230]I think Luther did start out to reform. What happen is that when he was called into question the things he was teaching, he dug in his heals and split off from the Church. (he was excommunicated) Luther did have a problem with authority, he did have a terrible childhood with an abusive father. Luther focussed a lot of his anger on the Pope which at the time was not a great example of holiness.

There may be some truth in this.

Some of Luther's own angst about faith and works and being good enough seems to carry over into his "faith alone".

And this

The things Luther ended up teaching such as faith alone, sola scripture, church authority in teaching are not taught from the early counsels of the church and that is what got him in trouble.

Do the early councils address the subjects of justification and hermeunetics?

The issue of Church authority has been one since 500 years prior to Luther, and even Nicea is in dsipute about Authority.

Luther wanted to gut the Bible by removing James and Revelation, he was talked out of it

Source, please.

Luther did remove 7 books that were approved from early church councils.

Incorrect. Luther's translation has 74 books. When we speak of the early councils, we are typically speaking of the seven general councils of the Church.

Jon


#10

[quote="JPeter, post:4, topic:294538"]
The Lutheran view of sola scriptura was not meant to undermine the church (the body of Christ) but to ensure that Tradition was kept pure. Some would say that the Lutheran view of sola scriptura was more comparable to prima scriptura. The Lutherans (then and now) could not have imagined the bible pulled away from the creeds or early church councils. This is why Traditional protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans are much more in agreement with Roman Catholics then the modern baptoevangelicals. As far as we are concerned Roman Catholics are doing a much better job. Sadly, many protestants today have decided to reinvent the wheel. They are a long way from the early reformers.

[/quote]

Over time everybody comes up with a better idea, right? You are most correct. If the majority of Protestants would look at their roots it would look very Catholic. You would even find Marian devotion, of all things, in the early Lutheran and Anglican communities.


#11

Some of Luther's own angst about faith and works and being good enough seems to carry over into his "faith alone". The things Luther ended up teaching such as faith alone, sola scripture, church authority in teaching are not taught from the early counsels of the church and that is what got him in trouble. Luther wanted to gut the Bible by removing James and Revelation, he was talked out of it. With the Anglican communion ordaining women and homosexuals, they certainly are not in line with Church history and counsels. Luther did remove 7 books that were approved from early church councils. Maybe he thought he was trying to reform go back to original so called Christianity but the results is that he reinvented the wheel which as not stopped since then.

I will grant you that Sola Fide was not explicitly taught by the 7 councils of the church. They focused much more on battling heresies that had arisen about the nature of God. This does not however imply a rejection of Sola Fide by the early church. Many of the Fathers spoke in terms of Sola Fide that were seemingly inline with Luther's view. The Anglican reformers brought Sola Fide into the English Catholic church. They did it because scripture clearly teaches this and it does not contradict the fathers of the Church.

Unfortunately Luther did talk about removing James and Revelation but then latter recanted this view. Both James and Revelation teach Sola Fide just not as clearly as Romans or Galatians. Luther never removed the Apocrypha. What he did do was recognize that it was not to be held on the same level as the rest of the canon. The early Church also used it this way. Though not perfect I think Luther did a fairly good job and got things headed in the right direction.

It is shameful that the Anglicans have started ordaining homosexuals and allow women to be ordained. All I can tell you is that classical Anglicanism does not allow for this. I am a classical Anglican and considering the fact that 51 percent of American Catholics believe that abortion should be legal for any reason, I will not be accepting the ordinate any time soon.


#12

[quote="JPeter, post:11, topic:294538"]

It is shameful that the Anglicans have started ordaining homosexuals and allow women to be ordained. All I can tell you is that classical Anglicanism does not allow for this. I am a classical Anglican and considering the fact that 51 percent of American Catholics believe that abortion should be legal for any reason, I will not be accepting the ordinate any time soon.

[/quote]

Wait, there is a big difference here. On one hand you have clerics with the Church committing agregious acts on behalf of the Church. On the other you have a bunch of disobedient people going against Church teaching. There is no moral equivalency here. The Catholic Church is not defending the position of those in favor of abortion who somehow still call themselves Catholic. The Anglican Church, however, is defending its actions.


#13

Wait, there is a big difference here. On one hand you have clerics with the Church committing agregious acts on behalf of the Church. On the other you have a bunch of disobedient people going against Church teaching. There is no moral equivalency here. The Catholic Church is not defending the position of those in favor of abortion who somehow still call themselves Catholic. The Anglican Church, however, is defending its actions.

You are correct! Allow me to clarify. I make no attempt to defend the ultra liberalism that has arisen within the Episcopal Church. Some of them are defending known heresies and others are allowing them to persist. We do on the other hand have a number of continuing Anglican churches that have broken from the Episcopal Church for these very reasons. I remain in the TEC because I believe we need a voice against these heresies.

Postmodernism has made its way into the Episcopal Church. Postmodernism is hard to define and the post modernists have done this intentionally. In their view there is no single truth, there is only my truth or your truth. They believe that if there is a truth that there is no way of finding it.

My point is that this is not only in the Episcopal church. It is really in all Churches. This includes those churches that consider themselves traditional or conservative. Nashotah house seminary and Trinity seminary for ministry are both quite conservative Episcopal Seminaries. Everywhere I go in the Episcopal Church today I run into smart, orthodox ,traditional believers both among the laity and clergy. There is a lot of reason to have hope for the long term of the Episcopal Church. regardless of the strange things that are happening in the present or even in the short term future. The post modernists believed that if we threw out the Bible and the Anglican formularies and told everyone what their itching ears wanted to hear that suddenly all of these people who have left the Church or were alienated from the Church would suddenly support us and show up for Mass. It has not worked at all. The Episcopal Church is shrinking at an incredibly fast rate.

Liberalism burns itself out. When you turn the Church into a social experiment the people loose interest over time. The law is meant to convict you and let you know that you are a sinner and fall short of the glory of God. Once we stop talking about sin, we do not deserve to exist on this earth. I believe the future of the Episcopal Church is with those faithful to God even in the Midst of a troubling period.

If an Episcopalian is in a good parish where you he is regularly receiving Christ through word and sacrament and you have a good priest there who is preaching the gospel to him and watching over the faithful there, then there is no reason that this has to change. We stay focused on Jesus. That is what all of this is really about. I believe that classical Anglicanism is the truth. It is not Anglicanism that has changed but the people who bear that name. Heretics will always rise up in Christs Church and from time to time get there heretical doctrines to exist for a while. That is why we must hold to the liturgy and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us.


#14

[quote="JPeter, post:11, topic:294538"]

It is shameful that the Anglicans have started ordaining homosexuals and allow women to be ordained. All I can tell you is that classical Anglicanism does not allow for this. I am a classical Anglican and considering the fact that 51 percent of American Catholics believe that abortion should be legal for any reason, I will not be accepting the ordinate any time soon.

[/quote]

What is your source about 51% of American Catholic believe abortion should be legal?
The Anglican communion has had a lot of turmoil in recent years. I am sure it is distressing to you. In reference to your 51% remark, I really don't think it is true and you did qualify it as American. While we do have a number of confused Catholics out there, I am Catholic not because a number of Catholics follow the Church perfectly but because I have come to believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ, it contains the full deposit of truth as handed by Christ to his apostles and have come to accept its teachings. Cardinal Neuman of England was an orthodox Anglican like you are describing yourself. He converted after many years of study of church history and early church fathers. His famous quote is to study deep in history is to cess to be Protestant.
I hope that you continue to study and learn. There have been a large number of Anglicans like yourself who have come home. There is even now a rite (I'm not sure what the name is) for Anglicans that have come home to Rome and it keeps some of the style and wording in the mass that you are use to. I wish you well as you study and learn.


#15

[quote="JonNC, post:9, topic:294538"]
There may be some truth in this.

And this

Do the early councils address the subjects of justification and hermeunetics?

The issue of Church authority has been one since 500 years prior to Luther, and even Nicea is in dsipute about Authority.

Source, please.

Incorrect. Luther's translation has 74 books. When we speak of the early councils, we are typically speaking of the seven general councils of the Church.

Jon

[/quote]

Hi Jon,
While Luther may have translated into German 74 books, the 7 we are talking about basically have been dropped out in Protestant Bibles and they use Luther as the example.
Luther's faith alone was one of the big things the got him in trouble and ex-communicated.
Which I think he tore up when delivered to him. I am not going to split hairs with you over whether the first 7 church counsels delved into the faith along subject but I will say that and quote Carding Neuman that to go deep into Christian history (study it) is to cess to be Protestant. Luther did want to eliminate James because it clear teaches against "faith alone" and does not fit at all what Luther was trying to promote in sola scripture and faith alone. A simple reading of James without any pre notions can see.
peace


#16

Luther's faith alone was one of the big things the got him in trouble and ex-communicated.
Which I think he tore up when delivered to him. I am not going to split hairs with you over whether the first 7 church counsels delved into the faith along subject but I will say that and quote Carding Neuman that to go deep into Christian history (study it) is to cess to be Protestant. Luther did want to eliminate James because it clear teaches against "faith alone" and does not fit at all what Luther was trying to promote in sola scripture and faith alone. A simple reading of James without any pre notions can see.
peace

All who accepted Sola Fide were condemned under the council of Trent. If we read James with out any pre notions it absolutely does not stand against faith alone but supports it. Paul and James do not contradict each other. Yes we need to do good works, but we do not do them to earn our salvation. We do good works because it is a natural outgrowth of Christ working in us. Just as we by nature are inclined toward evil and away from God, Jesus by nature is inclined toward God and towards good. When we are made one with Him, He transforms our natural evil into His natural good (Sanctification). In our justification we are judged righteous before God even though we are not righteous because God judges Jesus instead of us. God looks upon what Jesus has done instead of what we have done. Christ is working to make us holy from the moment of our baptism. Good works are a natural outgrowth of what Jesus is doing within us. Nothing earns us our salvation. Not even faith earns us our salvation, it is a free gift. Nothing we do is ever going to add to that. If we look at James in its wider context we see that this is exactly what St. James is saying. James says that faith without works is dead and that's true but James goes on to explain this a little bit. In James 2:17-19 it says:In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that —and shudder.
What James is saying is that faith is not merely belief. Faith is not simply saying that I believe God exists or that I believe God is who He says He is. Faith is trust! James is saying that even demons believe in the first sense. Demons believe in God they know that Jesus is the son of God. If we look at Marks gospel the demons knew that Jesus was the messiah before the apostles did. They do not however trust Him so they are not saved. James is saying that if we say that we believe in God but we refuse to help the poor or feed the hungry we are just like demons. The faith that justifies is the same faith that both James and Paul are talking about. Faith is trust of the heart and it is not something that we can gin up in ourselves, it has to be given as a gift by God. Is it your work or is it God's work? It is Gods work because if it is your work then there is some magical number of good works that you have to do in order to earn your salvation. Given the level of our sin the number of good works you would have to do would be impossible to do in our lifetime.

People object to this because deep down we still want to be our own gods. We want to be able to save ourselves. Every human being wants to play this out as long as sin is within us. Which is why so many Churches teach that we are saved by "Grace" because of something that we do. Let go of your desperate need to control the situation and let God in.


#17

[quote="JPeter, post:16, topic:294538"]
All who accepted Sola Fide were condemned under the council of Trent. If we read James with out any pre notions it absolutely does not stand against faith alone but supports it. Paul and James do not contradict each other. Yes we need to do good works, but we do not do them to earn our salvation. We do good works because it is a natural outgrowth of Christ working in us. Just as we by nature are inclined toward evil and away from God, Jesus by nature is inclined toward God and towards good. When we are made one with Him, He transforms our natural evil into His natural good (Sanctification). In our justification we are judged righteous before God even though we are not righteous because God judges Jesus instead of us. God looks upon what Jesus has done instead of what we have done. Christ is working to make us holy from the moment of our baptism. Good works are a natural outgrowth of what Jesus is doing within us. Nothing earns us our salvation. Not even faith earns us our salvation, it is a free gift. Nothing we do is ever going to add to that. If we look at James in its wider context we see that this is exactly what St. James is saying. James says that faith without works is dead and that's true but James goes on to explain this a little bit. In James 2:17-19 it says:In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that —and shudder.
What James is saying is that faith is not merely belief. Faith is not simply saying that I believe God exists or that I believe God is who He says He is. Faith is trust! James is saying that even demons believe in the first sense. Demons believe in God they know that Jesus is the son of God. If we look at Marks gospel the demons knew that Jesus was the messiah before the apostles did. They do not however trust Him so they are not saved. James is saying that if we say that we believe in God but we refuse to help the poor or feed the hungry we are just like demons. The faith that justifies is the same faith that both James and Paul are talking about. Faith is trust of the heart and it is not something that we can gin up in ourselves, it has to be given as a gift by God. Is it your work or is it God's work? It is Gods work because if it is your work then there is some magical number of good works that you have to do in order to earn your salvation. Given the level of our sin the number of good works you would have to do would be impossible to do in our lifetime.

People object to this because deep down we still want to be our own gods. We want to be able to save ourselves. Every human being wants to play this out as long as sin is within us. Which is why so many Churches teach that we are saved by "Grace" because of something that we do. Let go of your desperate need to control the situation and let God in.

[/quote]

James 2:14 "What good is it my brothers, if someone says he has faith but not works? Can that faith save him?" Keep reading the passage after the 19th verse. It in the most elementary way explains that sola fide is incorrect.

Put an end to your idea that Catholics are taught they can earn their salvation by a magical number of works. We are taught faith and works. How can one only "believe" and do nothing to show God they love Him? The works don't earn our salvation, they are ways of living and showing our faith and love for God.


#18

J

ames 2:14 "What good is it my brothers, if someone says he has faith but not works? Can that faith save him?" Keep reading the passage after the 19th verse. It in the most elementary way explains that sola fide is incorrect.

Put an end to your idea that Catholics are taught they can earn their salvation by a magical number of works. We are taught faith and works. How can one only "believe" and do nothing to show God they love Him? The works don't earn our salvation, they are ways of living and showing our faith and love for God.

It does no such thing. I am not going to put an end to it because that is exactly what you do teach. You show it in your own line of questioning. You make it about yourself. Your making it about what your doing instead of what God has done for you. Show God you love Him? God does not need your love, your neighbor does.


#19

[quote="SaintPatrick333, post:5, topic:294538"]
It is a good thing that so many lutherans and anglicans are coming home to the Church. I hope someday you will find yourself coming home to the Catholic Church as well my friend. God be with you!

[/quote]

It's nice to know ya'll are keeping the light on. :)


#20

[quote="robwar, post:7, topic:294538"]
The Anglican is about ready to fall apart too.

[/quote]

How do you figure that?


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.