Was the Protestant Reformation an act of God or an Act of men?

Matt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus Christ, never intended there to be a Protestant Reformation, period! The Protestant reformation is telling Jesus Christ, that he had lied and the Gates of hell did prevail over it! And therefore the church BUILT on ROCK needed to be Protested, and reformed by men.

The Protestant Reformation was indeed an Act of Men and NOT an Act of God for God can not lie.

Yes, an Act of Men. When man builds something it eventually falls apart, breaks away, into thousands of pieces such as the Protestant Churchessss, have, and history proves it! And each Protestant Church having a diferent approach with one another to who is right, but all, All in agreement to disagree with the Teachings of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ! Why?

How can one prove the Protestant reformation was not an ACT of God. The Protestants prove it themselves… How so? Well, how many reformations have their been in the Protestant world, since, the first Reformation? The Answer is MANY! Too many to count. This proves the First Protestant Reformation WRONG! Let alone those that followed there after. Protestants unkowningly Protest against themselves that is why New protestant churchess are opening their Doors for the first time, it seems like a daily thing, and each believing that they hold the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus Christ only made one set of keys, did he not? And there is no room for spares keys floating around town :thumbsup: For the Gates of hell can not prevail over it! Thus the reason for only one set of keys to the Kingdom, not thousands.

Ufamtobie

Was this a serious or rhetorical question, or just another chance to remind Protestants how wrong they are?

Act of man…it doesn’t stand to reason that the Almighty would do something to obfuscate the truth.

“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” (II Timothy iv, 3–4)

Not that I want to take another side, but it could be neither. It could also be both.

Perhaps the start of it was the work of God, forcing the Church to clean house, but man carried it to far.

Perhaps the start of it was neither God nor man but was the devil, and God is using it for good.

Is this a question? An answer? Or another infamous CAF strawman?

This is a good answer. I think it could also be asked, what difference does it make now, and are we all willing to let the Holy Spirit help us fix it?

Jon

True.

I do think that it is a fair question if asked correctly. The OP may not have done that.

Agreed. The OP may have loaded the question a little, but it is a fair question if it leads to a dialogue on reconciliation, not accusations and condemnations. It is always necessary to know where we have come from, in order to look top where we need to go.

Jon

It was both - regardless of what one thinks of it. Once one tries to think of it in detail, the detail of the answer becomes more complicated. The ideas in your last paragraph aren’t unanswerable by any means; that particular argument takes a lot for granted, & that is its weakness.

BTW, Protestantism is not a purely negative protest - it is not only a protest against; it is also a “protest for”, a “bearing witness to”. Catholic apologetic efforts will be stymied for as long as they fail to appreciate this, because that will mean that Catholics are refuting not Protestantism, but a shadow-Protestantism: & what good is that :frowning: ?
[LIST=1]
*]BTW, your argument takes for granted that Protestants have a Catholic ecclesiology - they don’t. So for us to complain of their ecclesiologies by applying our own as a standard to theirs, doesn’t work.
*]There is a second issue too: the fact that their ecclesiology is not ours, makes it different, but, it does not automatically make theirs wrong
*]The issue of wrongness or rightness is a further issue.
[/LIST]Tiresome as it can so often be, these issues can’t be simplified - beyond a certain point - without distorting the very questions we need to understand. Medicine doesn’t have to be simple - why must theology be ?

Hello, ufamtobie

If one assumes that Jesus giving the keys to Peter etc. established Peter as the supreme leader of the church,

and after that, if one assumes that Peter was able to pass that office on to an appointee (an ability which is never expressed in scripture),

and after that, if one assumes that Peter passed that office onto a/the bishop at Rome (even though the growing historical opinion is that Rome did not possess a single overseer at the time Peter could have visited Rome),

and after that, if one assumes that the bishops of Rome were able to pass that office on to subsequent bishops (even though the historical record shows that there was no consensus that held that the bishop of Rome possessed such an office of supremacy),

and after that, if one assumes, (despite the existence of rival popes at various times in history), that the bishops of Rome have legitimately passed that office on to subsequent bishops such that the bishop of Rome in 1517 was the head of the church,

and together with that, if one assumes that the office would not have been removed from the bishops of Rome due to gross misconduct (grossly sinful popes being not uncommon in the centuries leading up to the Reformation),

and if one assumes that the phrase “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” means that hierarchy of the church could not fall into significant doctrinal error (even though the leader of the church can be absolutely unqualified to be an overseer in accordance with the requirements of 1 Timothy 3 and be teaching grave error by his conduct),

then (it seems to me) it would be safe to conclude that the Reformation was merely a work of man. I doubt that we will agree on whether it is reasonable or not to make the foregoing assumptions…and we might need more than one thread to fully explore the validity of those assumptions :wink:

Protestant Reformation = Protestant Revolt :wink:

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli could not keep it held together for even a decade. LOL!

Catholicism has been strong and unified for 2,000 years. Today the church is 1.2 Billion strong and makes up more than 20% of all citizens in the USA which has a high Protestant population.

Protestant churches have given us Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons who do not teach Jesus is God but something other.

There are the Millerites and many others false teachings… so many as to not be able to count.

God did not create Protestant churches for they lack the signs of God as we see from there ever dividing and increasing diversity. If you doubt then you have not read and understood the Gospel of JOHN chapter 17.

You know, I still believe Luther was guided by the Holy Spirit to try to fix some of the scandals of the Church at the time. Unfortunately, local politics and his own human nature got in the way and instead we had the “reformation” and Christianity in the west was divided.

The biggest problem came when decided that Church doctrine, instead of Church practice was wrong.

From Luther:

The Decalogue belongs in the Townhall, not on the pulpit.

Decalogus gehört auf das Rathaus, nicht auf den Predigtstuhl.

All who consort with Moses, will eventually sell out to the Devil. Let Moses be hanged!

Alle, die mit Mose umgehen, müssen zum Teufel fahren, an Galgen mit Mose.

“An Galgen mit Mose”, literally, “To the gallows with Moses!"

Faith and Sanctification, G. C. Berkouwer, Eerdmans, 1952, ISBN-10: 0802848176, p. 164.

Primary source: Luther’s Latin Works, Erlangen-Frankfurt edition:

D. Martini Lutheri opera Latina varii argumenti, Heinrich Schmidt, Frankfurt-on-the-Main & Erlangen, Carl Heyder & H. Zimmer, 1867.
Two volumes in one: Vol. 3 (1866), pp. 1- 503. Vol. 4 (Title page begins p. 505), pp. 1-492.

See, Vol. 4, p. 423.

I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.

(Good news, I guess, for Mormons!) :wink: LOL!

Letter to Chancellor Gregory Brück (An Den Kanzler Brück), January 13, 1524.

*Dr. Martin Luther’s Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken: volständig aus den verschiedenen Ausgaben seiner Werke und Briefe, aus andern Büchern und noch unbenutzten Handschriten gesammelt, 1826, * edited by W.M. L. De Wette, vol. 2, p. 459.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

So was the Protestant Reformation an act of God or an Act of men?

I don’t know - you tell me! LOL!! :wink:

Re: the above quote by Luther:

“I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.”

His Latin reads:

“Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere nec repugnat sacris literis.”

De Wette, 2, 459.
books.google.com/books?id=5kcAAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA459&dq=%22Ego+sane+fateor,+me+non+posse+prohibere%22&lr=

See also:

Luther’s own statements concerning his teaching and its results, Henry O’Connor, S.J., 1884, Benziger Brothers, p. 29ff.

books.google.com/books?id=N9QrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22Ego+sane+fateor+me+non+posse+prohibere%22&source=bl&ots=7Y9V4JnxwZ&sig=EyQLxfMr4rZ3kE3v_xGD8p-1Sqk&hl=en&ei=AP3eSe2WGMfqnQfnx8CuCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA30,M1

Finish the quote:

Therefore let him seek out such men as may convince him by the Word of God, whether Carlstadt, or some other, matters not at all to the Prince. For if the fellow is not sure of his case, then the permission of the Prince will not make him so; nor is it for the Prince to decide on this point, for it is the priests business to expound the Word of God, and, as Zacharias says, from their lips the Law of the Lord must be learned. I, for my part, admit I can raise no objection if a man wishes to take several wives since Holy Scripture does not forbid this; but I should not like to see this example introduced amongst Christians. … It does not beseem Christians to seize greedily and for their own advantage on every thing to which their freedom gives them a right. . . . No Christian surely is so God-forsaken as not to be able to practise continence when his partner, owing to the Divine dispensation, proves unfit for matrimony. Still, we may well let things take their course"

Or another quote:

As regards the other matter, my faithful warning and advice is that no man, Christians in particular, should have more than one wife, not only for the reason that offense would be given, and Christians must not needlessly give, but most diligently avoid giving, offense, but also for the reason that we have no word of God regarding this matter on which we might base a belief that such action would be well-pleasing to God and to Christians. Let heathen and Turks do what they please. Some of the ancient fathers had many wives, but they were urged to this by necessity, as Abraham and Jacob, and later many kings, who according to the law of Moses obtained the wives of their friends, on the death of the latter, as an inheritance. The example of the fathers is not a sufficient argument to convince a Christian: he must have, in addition, a divine word that makes him sure, just as they had a word of that kind from God. For where there was no need or cause, the ancient fathers did not have more than one wife, as Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and many others. For this reason I cannot advise for, but must advise against, your intention, particularly since you are a Christian, unless there were an extreme necessity, as, for instance, if the wife were leprous or the husband were deprived of her for some other reason. On what grounds to forbid other people such marriages I know not"

But it doesn’t matter, because Lutherans have never accepted Luther carte blanche. And Lutherans today and all through history reject bigomy. You are very well read, so I think you already knew that. I suspect you also knew the rest of the quote before I posted it.

Still trying to figure our what this has to do with the question. :shrug:

Jon

Where did you get the idea that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ever were together? It is not like they were in a room together planning some sort of revolt, and then couldn’t agree afterward. In addition, Calvin was not exactly a contemporary of Luther’s. He was, what, 8 years old in 1517 when Luther nailed the 95 theses. The reformed and Lutheran movements are not from the same common source except Catholicism.

Jon

All three men are the fruits of Protestantism and those fruits being division and lack of God given guidance.

Luther and Calvin had their battles over the Eucharist as symbolic or consubstantiation. And Zwingly was there with them doing his own thing.

These three men are all founding fathers of man made traditions based on selfish and arrogant ways without God as guide.

Martin Luther should have never broke his vows to God. Maybe if he kept living as he spoke of when he gave the Sermon in 1516 on St Peter then he would have accomplish some reformation instead of leading millions into man made lies where they believe them to be truths?

  1. Luther never talked about consubstantiation.
  2. The really selfish and arogant ones of Luther’s era were the ones like Tetzel, literally robbing the poor for their worthless pieces of paper. That said, could Luther have done a better job handling himself, sure. So could have Pope Leo X.
  3. You say my communion lies. Can you document anywhere where Luther or any Lutheran leader *intentionally attempted to mislead *people? A lie is an intentional attempt to mislead. We may disagree with each other, but neither of us are liars about our faith. One more question on the matter, do you think that when Lutheran and Catholic leaders sit down to dialogue, they call each other liars?

Jon

Intent is not what is at question.

Martin Luther made up his teaching of the Eucharist as well as other things. He CREATED a church based on the One God already Created when Jesus was here.

In doing that Martin Luther taught contrary to God and thus he taught lies. As to Martin Luther’s intent… it really does not matter. A lie is a lie.

And we are no discussing the righteousness of these characters but rather what God has given and commanded. The Catholic Church, being the only true faith, has all that God has given in regards to Truth. That is why God made the Catholic Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Get my point yet?

Let me try again…

It is not the person but what they teach. The wolves that enter the church are wolves because they teach contrary to the Church. The ECFs had words like anti-christ for men like these. Martin Luther is a wolf and he taught lies. Whether he intended to mislead so many is a matter between God and Martin Luther. Regardless… many today follow Luther’s false teachings and believe they are doing God’s will and they have no idea it is the will of sinful man that broke his vows with God.

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.