[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Reformation (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/31/2006 9:32:07 PM EDT
| Oct 31 1517....Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg Palace Chapel, sparking the Reformation......Christianity was forever changed. |
|
What exactly did he 'reform'? Faith and morals? As for the faith, he jettisoned lots of things Europeans had believed for centuries setting in motion a wave of heresies, each of which was incapable of proving itself to be the 'one true' faith. As for morals, he joined a political rebellion and this led to centuries of religious warfare as well as the breakdown of the independence of the Church vis a vi the state (within 100 years the states of Northern Europe were in firm control of their 'national churches' as kings started controlling churchmen.). State-run churches soon found divorce to be OK, and other moral issues started sliding wholesale as well...  
|
That disingenuous and misleading. |
how so? its the same logic the Christian right uses when decrying the failing morals today... |
|
OK, now it IS a logical fallacy to use post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.... "since all hell broke loose in the Catholic Church after 1965, the Second Vatican Council must have been the direct cause of the breakdown". But lots of Catholics make that argument. (Strangely these same folk DON'T BLAME the Council of Trent in the late 1500's for the loss of every European kingdom to the modern secular anti-clerical state). So merely because bad things happened after Luther got going, isn't the argument. But it's undeniable that the rebellious princes in Germany USED Luther's theology to JUSTIFY their revolt as well as their power grabs that led directly to warfare and a decline in morals. Without the Protestant revolt it's hard to imagine how the Kings would have seized Church lands and thus wiped out independent Christian influence of culture, higher education, and morals. But thanks to Luther's teachings, it became 'theoretically viable' for kings to simply wipe out churchmen they disagreed with and prop up those they did. NO ONE denies that the Church then NEEDED REFORM - THEN, AND ALWAYS. tHE QUESTION IS: DID WHAT LUTHER DO CONTRIBUTE TO RENEWED HOLINESS AND FIDELITY TO THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH, or set in motion the dissolution of faith and morals as each 'believer' became the final arbiter of all that was sacred and true?
|
|
The Reformation was begun under Martin Luther, but it is an ongoing process and still has a ways to go. Jesus prophesied that there would be a 'restoration of all things' before His return (Matt. 17:11). Obviously, the Lord knew that the Church would loose its way and need to be restored after His ascension. In fact, the Book of Acts further reveals that Jesus must remain in Heaven until this restoration or restitution is complete (Acts 3:21). When we look at the structure and the power of the first century Church that turned the world upside down in a generation, we can see that this restoration is far from complete. Martin Luther was right that the strength of the hierarchal clergy must be broken down and the priesthood of the believers must be a reality, but all he did was replace a hierarchal clergy in the form of a priesthood with the same in the form of autocratic pastors. It was a good first step, but each subsequent generation was given the responsiblity to stand on the shoulders of the reformers that went before them and to take the next step in restoring the Church to the one that Jesus built. Same system and error, but the names were changed to distinguish Protestant clergy from Catholic clergy. When you restore a car, it is not something that evolved into something different and better. The same when you restore a home. Restoration means to return something to its original state when it was new. The apostles who intimately knew Jesus built it right the first time and subsequent changes throughout the centuries were not improvements. |
So in other words, Jesus established a Church(authority to Peter and those who followed him down the line) with heieracrchy but Luther had a better design or system? There is a reason the Curch is 2000+ years old and still the strongest. Yes things needed to change, and today change is needed in some areas as well. All of mankind evolves spiritually and with knowledge etc. Luther was not patient enough to work within the system and allow the time to be taken to evolve. Basically the Pope now can track backwards through the lines of Popes to a room with Jesus and Peter. Not another Church can make this claim. This is NOT saying one is better than the other at all. This is just to clarify that descendancy from Peter goes to Rome now, and has for 2000+ years. It is interesting that although we all pretty much accept and believe the same basic things, we spend so much time squabbling about the minor differences between sects of Christianity. Your quote from Matt17:11 is appropriate in many respects. Jesus knew that anything run by men would have problems. Look at the state of judaism in His (Jesus') time... He was not happy about what had come to exist in the Temple and the way the Pharisees were conducting themselves etc. Anything that is run by man will have problems and won't ever be perfect. Jesus was acutely aware of this, hence his prophecy... As a matter of fact, the whole idea of humanity being flawed was His main reason for coming down to Earth in the first place. My opinion is this, and it is just an opinion, nothing more.... If Luther was correct, then why is the RC Church still numbering 3 to 1 over all other Christian denominations combined? My theory is that even with its' flaws the Catholic Church has endured and will endure because it is the "Original Coke" and not the "New Coke". There is some comfort for me in knowing that my Church will never disappear, and that is has stood the test of time. All churches are good if they cause a person to grow closer to God. Whatever denomination of Christianity you choose, if it brings you nearer to God is good for you. But to assert that a modern twist is "going back to the way it was" is ridiculous. Jesus said to Peter "You are my rock, upon YOU I build my church" He didnt say "I am building my Church with Peter and then anyone else who uses my name can start a church too." Just my opinion.... |
At least you show enough humility to admit that this is only your opinion. As I am sure that you realize, only Catholics believe that the Catholic church is the only one who can trace their lineage back to Jesus. Peter was a Christian, not a Catholic. And Jesus is the Rock on which the true Church is built. But then again, we have hashed this out before on here ad infinitum. Once again, I am pleased that you can admit that this is only your opinion because that is all it is. It is not mine and like you said, this is just my opinion and of no more or less value than yours. |
Thanks for the challenge. I just looked them up and read them for the first time. It seems like 95 ways to say that the pope should not be selling the power he claimed to have of getting people out of the non-Biblical place called purgatory. Seems harmless enough by today's standards of challenging and wanting to debate theology. I guess we have come a long way if this small challenge to one man's authority caused a religious war. |
|
Except that Luther was barking up the wrong tree with respect to indulgences.... as the Pope and "Church" didn't claim what the local nut jobs in Germany were incorrectly preaching to be so. Rather than distinguish between what the locals were doing, and what the Church preached, he attacked the Pope and whole pennitential system. But by their fruits you shall know them. Had he been inspired by God one would think all the fruits of holiness would accrue, from humility to peace and unity. Instead we got more and more vicious language from the man, culminating in some rather frosty language about Jews towards the end. I don't deny that the Church needed reform - then and now! But to attempt a reform in morals by jettisoning doctrine en masse, and then removing a stable criteria by which believers can determine what is or is NOT authentic teaching, sounds more like a wholesale revolt than a reform. In terms of "look what happened" the 'cure' seems worse than the disease of corrupt church men. Christianity is nearly DEAD in all the European countries where Protestants rule - from England to Scandanavia to Germany and beyond. The 'mainline' Churches everywhere are in full implosion mode. Yet they are not constitutionally different from the newer evangelical or fundamentalist Christian 'mega-churches' in that all reject the hierarchical and sacramental system of grace. All hold that the only authority to a believer is the bible; all claim that of all the people on earth, the Pope of the Catholic Church is DEFINATELY NOT INFALLIBLE, while each and every 'believer' who picks up the bible is miraculously assured of an infallible interpretation because the Spirit will guide them directly and without mediation or instruction. And that's just fine as a theory but after 400 some years it just doesn't appear to be working out as there's constant disagreement on fundamental points of belief (Jesus' divinity, Jesus' humanity, Jesus' intentions....the nature of the Church, teaching authority or not, how sins are forgiven, how people are to be baptised, the nature of baptism, whether or not "the communion of saints" means anything beyond the grave, etc etc etc.) If the "me and God and the bible" approach was the true original way of things, one would reasonably expect to see amazing unity of doctrine and morals among all the non-Catholic Christian world. This country wouldn't even have a problem with abortion, contraception, divorce and remarriage, much less gay marriage! So how to account for the manifest divisions of belief and action among people who are sincere Christians, who know their bible, and who by all evidence earnestly strive to submit to Jesus' Lordship?  |
|
The same view of the fruit of the Reformation could be made of Jesus and the Jewish established institutional religion of His time. He came against the Saducces and the Pharisees and the Sanhedron, not to destroy the people of God, but to Reform the way God was worshipped under Moses back to the original covenant of God through Abraham. Christianity has from the beginning been about the restoration of the way of God after man in their carnality and legalism had perverted the way of God. Acts 3 reveals that we require constant "times of refreshing from the pressence of the Lord". Martin Luther brought in one of these times and then he too got legalistic and rigid like the Catholic church that he came to reform. Within a generation, when the next time of refreshing came with the Anabaptists, Luther's group became the 'Saul Church' that threw the spiritual javelins at the next "David Church" that came along. It has never changed and never will until the Lord returns. God moves upon a people to emphasize a truth of God which corrects error that has crept into the institutional church around them. They suffer outside the camp with Christ as they are called heritics and cults and are relegated to the back side of the tracks. But in time, what they brought from the Lord becomes accepted as the people vote with their feet and they move to the good side of the tracks and becaome acceptable. Then, when the next move of God comes and the people start crying that Saul may have slain thousands, but David his ten thousands, the former move becomes the ones trying to hold onto their people and their power and their money and their glory. The Bible reveals that what is of the flesh always persecutes that which is of the spirit. Natural Israel persecuted spiritual Israel in the first century and it still happens today. The good news is that there is always a remnant of God's people who follow the Lamb withersoever He goes. They are baptised into the cloud like the children of Israel in the wilderness. When the cloud of God's Spirit moves, they pull up their tent stakes and follow the cloud to each subsequent move of God. When the cloud stops over a truth that God is trying to restore, they drive in their tent stakes and basque in the move of God until He moves again and they move again. This is the reason that we have hundreds of denominations today because people have not learned to move with the cloud of God's Spirit. A denomination is never formed when God moves because they just see themselves as Christians following God. Martin Luther still felt that he was a Catholic and just trying to bring reform. When those in power will not accept the reform, the reformers are driven outside the camp with Christ. A denomination is formed when the next move of God starts to take THEIR people and the leaders start to feel that they are loosing power. The denomination is formed when the tents we are supposed to dwell in during this wilderness journey are made into temples of stone. This is when men of God try to hold God's people under their control under the guise of stopping the heritics from harming God's people. I know you will not agree, but Catholics did not become Catholics until the Reformation. Up until then, they were just the Church. Catholic was not a capitalized denomination, it just was the universal church that everyone belonged to. The sad part is from Luther on, each reformer became what they came against as they became the rigid denomination that no longer wanted to move with the cloud of God's Spirit. |
Ummmm history reflects this as well. Secular historians will acknowledge this fact. Can you tell me another Church that can make this calim with any validity(secular history) Any historian will tell you this as well. |
|
All a guy does is post a HISTORICAL FACT on the anniversary and folks decide its time to bash Protestants. Real nice. It DID change the face of Christianity. My screen name is based upon Pope Leos name for Martin Luther. I personally agree with most of his views, especially that of the RCC. BUT, I keep those to myself out of respect for the Roman Catholic members here. |
|
Quote: Ummmm history reflects this as well. Secular historians will acknowledge this fact. Can you tell me another Church that can make this calim with any validity(secular history) Any historian will tell you this as well. Yes. Absolutely. I don't know about your secular history, but His-Story can identify this true church that you have apparently not heard of. It is called Christianity. It has existed since the time of Jesus Christ. It was passed down through the twelve original apostles by the leading ot the Holy Spirit. Peter was one of these twelve, but he was not its rock. Your rock is not our Rock (the Cornerstone who the builders have rejected). I am a member of this universal Church and if you have been saved by the Blood of the Lamb and Jesus is your Lord than so are you. This original catholic or universal Church is the spirtual Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, an innumerable company of angels. It is the general assembly and church of the Firstborn who are registered in Heaven. We are just men made perfect by the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Ever heard of it. It predates the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church or the Baptist Church or the Assemblies of God. Denominationalists cannot see it because they think that their Christian sect is really the true Church. But Christ is not divided and neither is His Body. Those who claim membership and allegiance to one of these sects deny their membership in this older and unbroken Church that I speak of by their seperatists confessions of faith and by their views of the true Church. And for that, I pity them. While they spend their time speaking to the dead, they miss the true communion of the saints because they do not rightly descern the Lord's Body. |
You still have not given a reliable academic citation to back up your assertion. What you refer to is intangible and lacking authority. I asked you to give me a provable church that can trace its descendancy from Jesus and Peter. I can give you one. |
|
If you do not consider Christianity to be a tangible church or the authority of the Lord, Jesus Christ, as tangible authority than you are worse off than I first thought. Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world or a Kingdom that could be physically observed saying here it is or there it is. He said that His Kingdom was within us. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.(Lk. 17:20,21) Many of the first apostles could not get this until after they received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost and they kept asking Him to show them a physical Kingdom that they could see with their eyes. Maybe, you Catholics are directly descended from these apostles since you still do not get it. You still want to make a physical Kingdom with physical men as its rulers. The Pharisees couldn't see or understand what Jesus was saying because they had no spiritual understanding. Things have changed little in 2000 years. I pray that you will some day be able to see and to enter the Kingdom of God. It is so much more tangible and real than anything that you put your trust in. Unfortunately, it must be spiritually discerned so you will never see it as long as you only trust what you can see with your natural eyes or figure out with your carnal mind. |
I think this is the single most arrogant and condescending post I've read from you yet. It is very apparent now what you think of us Catholics. It is also clear that you have no understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Kingdom of God. You assume to know what we Catholics put our trust in and that we do not discern spiritually and only look with natural eyes, yet you really have no idea what we believe or what living a Catholic life entails. Do you even know what the Church teaches about prayer and relationship wiith God? I doubt it. You claim to be following what the early Church believed, yet you reject any semblance of historical fact about what the early Church believed and did in favor or your own erroneous idea of the Church's "apostacy" and your own personal interpretation of a Bible that you would not even have if the Catholic Church had not compiled it. |
I was responding to another poster who asked me to show him a physical or historical or man ruled Church that predated Catholicism. And that is what I did. The Bible says that in Antioch, they wer first called Christians. It does not say that in Antioch, they were first called Catholics. Christianity is the name of the Church started by and ruled over by Christ. Peter was one of those called Christian. Christ is not divided and Paul made it clear in I Cor. 3 that anyone who identifies with a seperate group of Christians is immature and carnal. I have said before that I do believe that many Catholics are indeed Christians, but they are just immature and carnal Christians as revealed by their identifying with a sect of Christianity instead of with just Christianity. Christianity is the Church started by Christ that flowed through Peter and the other 11 apostles to us today. Catholic is a younger and smaller subset of Christianity and there have been many other subsets since. So, it is not arrogant or demeaning to answer this brother's question that I do belong to the One True Church which predates Catholicism. The Kingdom is from everlasting to everlasting and has existed as long as God has existed. Catholicism only became a distinctly seperate sect at the time of the Reformation when this sect seperated itself from the sect that Martin Luther started. But despite it all, Christianity has continued unbroken because it is a spiritual extension of God's Kingdom and it does not come with observation, but it is a Kingdom which is within all who have sworn allegiance to it's King, Jesus Christ. And if you, Mr. Looney, are one of those Christians who has made Jesus your Lord, then you are a part of this Kingdom. But Catholicism or Lutherenism or Pentacostalism are just man-made, demonically inspired divisions meant to divide and conquer Christianity. I, for one, am not buying into this whole denominational spirit. Any other "Christians" out there? 
|
Just some quotes by Luther. Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word.... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God. Be a sinner and sin vigorously! What shall we do with the Jews?...their homes also should be razed and destroyed. The winds are nothing else but good or bad spirits. Hark! how the Devil is puffing and blowing. "We are at fault for not slaying them." (Jews) "If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words `I baptize thee in the name of Abraham'." And it is important to remember that when the poor peasants in Germany started their own "protest" Martin Luther urged that they all be slaughtered, which they were to the tune of around 100,000. |
I don't support everything he said or did, but I firmly believe that his posting the 95 theses was an inspired thing. That was the inspiration I was referring to. |
The question is whether or not it was a Divinely inspired thing. You must admit that for Christ to say "Go, and sin no more" and Luther to say "Sin, go on sinning, and sin vigorously!" poses not a little problem as to the 'source' of his inspiration. Add to this his direct complicity in the murder of 100,000 peasants and his desire for a medieval "Final Solution" and one runs into rather an obvious difficulty. |
God uses imperfect people for His works. Peter denied Christ three times in one evening, yet the Lord didn't discard him. Jonah had major issues with trying to avoid doing what the Lord asked him to do, but the Lord still used him. As for Luther, he was far from perfect, but he served a purpose the Lord had for him. |
Best post in this thread. You sir are correct!!!! (Ed McMahon Voice) |
Most of that is out of context. Some is not. Martin Luther was at times a complete madman and at other times a very prayerful and humble man. I still feel God used him rightly. God even used a stupid donkey to rebuke someone. The Bondage of The Will is a brilliant book. I highly recommend it. |
|
Peter spoke by divine revelation and by Satanic inspiration in the same conversation with our Lord (Matt. 16). He said that Jesus was the Christ as revealed by the Father and immediately said that Jesus should not go to the cross by the inspiration of Satan. Do we expect Martin Luther to be any different? Jesus praised Peter for what he said that was of God and rebuked him for what he said of the enemy. Yet, he did not cast him aside. I am glad that He remains the Judge of the whole earth and not none of us. |
Being afraid for ones life in a moment of weakness, and lobbying for genocide while being instrumental in the murder of over 100,000 men, women, and children, are not in the same ballpark, they are not even in the same universe.
|
I'm getting the impression that you have some very personal feelings involved in this situation, judging by your remarks. I'm not out to get you. |
|
Firstly, the thing that seems most important in my readings of the 95 thesis is that it is an attack upon unjust power in the hands of the pope(he never once said that the keys to church on earth didnt exist, he only said that at the time the pope didnt hold them). Luthers goal was never to break the church. he was a devout member of it and merely wanted to see the church christ had given them returned to its originial state. he wanted reform, not a new church. Remember, he didnt leave the church initially. he only chose to leave once the pope called for him to remove parts of the 95 thesis. With Decet Romanium Pontificem he was kicked from the church. he even went so far as to defend himself at the Diet of Worms. It was then and only then that he completly removed himself from the Holy Roman Church(hrc). He then found himself taken in by Fredrick the Wise. Here he found support of some nobility, and began to write in defense of the peasents. Now, the issue of the peasents revolt. Important things to think about: 1. Luther defended the peasents from the security of a nobles home. Some Princes were on board-it wasnt just "Thieving hordes" to quote Luther. 2. Luther, upon witnessing the horrors of the conflict called on those in power to bring it to a swift end.(Romans 13 seems to speak to the power of state in issues like this) 3. Many, upon realizing they didnt have the support of luther, called it quits. 4 Luther did not start it to make a buck. He did not start it to destabilize the church. He was only one of many factors leading to this conflict. The largest one, in my mind, was the economic problems facing people at the time. Also, theologians like Munzer who stages violent revolts to prepare the way for christs return. things like that spread quickly through a region full of discontent. Sure, luther fed that, but he was not the only cause. thats all i can do for now. seems i ought to be off to bed. but, for those who care to read more on the subject, you could do much worse than reading "The Reformation" by Roland Bainton. there is no better book on the subject. also, "Martin Luther" by Marty Martin is an excellent read. if those dont fill your want for knowledge, let me know. i have a few more that seem worth while on the subject. |
|
Church splits often begin with someone hearing from the Lord about an area of the church where they are a member that needs reform to return to the will of God. Usually, these reformers have no intention or desire to leave and start something new, they just want to help their church to correct error. The problem arises when the powers that be demand that they either recant of what the Lord told them or to leave the church. They, then, are forced to make the choice that Peter and John had to make in Acts when told to no longer preach for Christ. Do they obey God or man. If they are men of God and they really believe that they have heard from Him, they must choose to leave and those who are hearing the voice of God with them will also leave. Again, denominations are not formed by the ones leaving. It is the ones who want to denounce those who leave who try to solidify their control and to hold their people that make a stand. Those who leave usually just see themselves as following the Lord and just as the church of Jesus Christ. That is until the next ones in their group try to bring change that they do not agree with. Then, they become the Saul's casting the javelins at the new David company and then this first group becomes a denomination when trying to hold their people from the new group that has formed. This is of man and not of God. The hundreds of denominations is the fruit of the problem, but the root is that Jesus is not allowed to speak through His whole Body within man-made religious structures. Paul said that when we come together EVERYONE OF YOU should bring a teaching, a revelation, a song etc. (I Cor. 14). As long as we have an elite hierarchy that believes that they alone have the Word of the Lord, we will continue to see church splits and holy wars as Jesus continues to try get in the doors of His Church through His many-membered Body. |
|
The "problem" is that Jesus taught 1 Gospel message which includes both theology about God (the Father, the son, the holy spirit) and morals (how to behave), and this one truth, one way, one life, is HARD. So people disagree over this or that and start preaching these new doctrines to justify their different theologies (drawing a distinction between the Logos and the Christ, claiming Jesus wasn't a divine person but a normal man 'used' by God, etc.) or new doctrines to justify their morality (divorce and remarriage impossible? declare yourself the head of the Church and viola! instantly OK to divorce and remarry 6x). What is the Church, the single church founded by Jesus and implored by Him to stay united supposed to do when new members start straying from the original Gospel in matters of faith or morals (and not in cultural, linguistic stuff that's par for course)? What is our criteria of judging who is a 'reformer' sent from God as opposed to a heretic 'wolf in sheep's clothing'? ANYONE who claims to be motivated by God to preach a new gospel theology or morality IS merely obeying GOD? Or by what means does this single Church rely on to test spirits? If "solely the scripture" then we face the whole "who makes the final judgment call as to what this or that verse means in this particular case"? dilemma. Because obviously Paul disputed with fellow Christians in Antioch over how to deal with Pagan converts.... both argued from scripture but couldn't agree....so how was THAT dispute settled? If we accept that Jesus' Church HAS TEACHING AUTHORITY, then we face the question: how is this achieved throughout time? If particular men have this authority, how do we know for sure they and not others have it? Is there a sign we all can look to for their bona fides? If they don't have teaching authority - or we only have people's words for it and we can't look to their "fruits" (since as is argued above, God uses all types to do his work) then how DO WE KNOW for sure whether they're legit or not? Wouldn't we all be left as sheep without a shepherd? |
Dadgummit, man! Quit injecting logic and reason into this! 
|
|
We either believe all of the Bible or we reject it all. Jesus said: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. (Jn. 10:1-5) I understand your concerns and I have them, also. It takes faith in God's Word and in God's ability to rule over His Church to believe this. But the Word says that all of His sheep will know His voice and the voice of a stranger they will not follow. It does not say that a chosen group of priests or pastors will know His voice and they will stop people from following other voices. This is the view of most clergy, but not what Jesus said or believes. When a person "gets something from God", they are supposed to bring it to the whole Church as Paul prescribed in I Cor . 14:26. This is done because we believe that all of His sheep will know if it is His voice and if it is not, then the Church will not follow this strange voice. There is sure safety in the multitude of counselors and it is much harder for a strange voice to be followed by the many than by the few. Those who believe in an exalted clergy do not believe this, but it is true. Plenty of popes and pastors have listened to stranger's voices and caused problems in the Church because what they were hearing was not brought out into the light with the whole Body for consideration. The reason it seems that rule by the elite can be such a problem to the hearing of God's voice is ego and control and power and money become a factor. I have known many pastors who were more concerned with maintaining control than they were about obeying God's voice. It did not matter if what was brought by a member of the congragation made good spiritual sense, their attitude was that "If I didn't get it directly than it ain't God". Because they do not believe that every sheep hears His voice and they did not believe that everyone should bring a teaching or a revelation as the Word says. They end up keeping the Lord from speaking through His many-membered Body so that they can maintain their place as the one having the teaching authority. I know that this is true because often after they have blasted the poor saint who had a Word from the Lord for their rebellion and their being out of order and drove these saints out of the church, they later adopted exactly what was brought by the member as if they had just gotten it directly from the Lord. I know that some will think that Catholic popes are different, but has anyone purchased an indulgence lately? History has prooven that Martin Luther had a Word from God to correct an error that some German bishops had brought in, but the issue that brought about this church-split was the perceived audacity of a mere man bringing correction to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. It did not matter if what this man heard from God was right, it just mattered that it did not come down from the pope. This problem is not a Catholic or a Protestandt problem. It is a clergy/laity problem. Jesus is revealed in Rev. 3:20 at a time when many consider to be the time of the end-times church and He is standing outside His Church and knocking to get in. His voice comes through all of the members of His Body, but if the powers that be in the denominations of today think that it is their responsibility to silence the laity when it comes to getting direction from the Lord, they are not giving Him the access that He demands through all of the Church's members. We have to give people more credit to know His voice and let the people speak. If someone brings the voice of a stranger pretending to be the voice of the Good Shepherd, all will know it immediately. The Body will be preserved and the offending brother or sister will get the help they need in discerning the voices. And more importantly, the Lord will be able to speak freely and get correction to the Church when the ones in power do not have ears to hear. It is a fact that few leaders will be open to a Word from the Lord that limits and restricts their power or finances or glory. It would be like expecting a politician to vote themselves a pay cut. It just ain't gonna happen. |
|
There's a huge problem with this "clergy" problem: it's biblically based.... Jesus DIDN'T SAY "go, write down my words, print as many copies in as many different languages as possible, and then go away, because I will infallibly lead each individual believer to do what I command YOU, until the end of time". No, he said (Mt.28:18-) "18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." So who was he talking to? The eleven, the apostles.... who He sent to all nations...and promised to remain with always. Now it's obvious that those 11 men didn't reach the ends of the earth in their lifetimes nor did they preach his word to all nations.... so the implication is that their mandate from heaven was handed on to others whom they added - such as the 12th they chose later, and Paul and others who came afterwards. Which is easier to grasp? That God somehow motivates millions of disparate individuals to infallibly interpret scripture which magically gets printed without error, or that God guarantee's the teaching authority of a few people who are, for all their faults, guided as much by the spirit as by obedience to what came before, i.e. the traditions handed down by previous generations? The first idea is totally unbiblical - we see nothing of the sort in the Gospels or in Acts or in the epistles, or in Revelation.... but we DO see lots of evidence for a teaching body of men who had the authority to make judgement calls and decisions in matters of faith, morals, and church government. (like the creation of deacons). |
Just ask the apostle Paul. |
I believe it is in Ephesians where many ordained ministers (deacons, priests, Apostles, etc) are mentioned, and it is specified that the organization of the church is specifically for, "the perfection of the saints...." |
|
JusAd: you just made my point for me if you read what Jesus said and not what you interpret Him to say. He told the 11 to go into all the world and to preach the gospel and to make disciples. Granted. And then He finished by telling them to teach those who they preach to to obeserve all that He told them to do. Thus, He told them to preach everywhere and to tell everyone else to preach everywhere. Otherwise, He would have not been telling them to observe ALL that He had told them to do. Yes, Jesus gave gifts to men, Shane, and these apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are to help bring maturity to the members so that these members could also do the work of the ministry. The problem with Biblical interpretation is that we often project back into history our current view of things. Jesus was speaking to believers who He had specifically told that there would be no exercising of authority among them to go out and pass on to others everything that they were doing because there was not supposed to be a distinction between what they were doing and what those they taught were to do. This is consistent with what He told them in Matt 20 and 23. Some people see the meeting in Jerusalem to discuss and settle whether gentiles should be circumsized and keep the Law of Moses as an early College of Cardinals imagining a bunch of old men all in scarlet robes settling the doctrines of the faith for the rest of the Church from their gilded thrones. This was not the setting that Jesus had around the campfires with His disciples and not what they would have continued with after He was ascended. It was a bunch of brothers submitting what they had received from the Lord and looking for His voice in the midst of them. When James spoke, everyone heard the voice of their Shepherd and it was settled. This is the way that New Testament meetings are to be conducted. You do not have a bunch of oligarchy boys sitting upon guilded thrones in kingdly robes as the common people sit at their feet waiting for them to say what God is saying to them. Jesus came in the appearance of a common man born in a stable, yet men still seek Him in Temples of Stone among men in kingly garments sourounded by gold and purple. But the wise ones who find Him, do so among shepherds in common surroundings. |
|
"The problem with Biblical interpretation is that we often project back into history our current view of things." Ain't that the truth!  "Jesus was speaking to believers who He had specifically told that there would be no exercising of authority among them " First of all, quote the scripture you refer to: he didn't say "there is NO AUTHORITY among them, but DO NOT ACT LIKE THE PAGANS WHO LORD IT OVER ONE ANOTHER. big, big, difference! You can't send someone to speak on your behalf ("he who hears you, hears me") and not give them authority! "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the servant of all" - doesn't mean "no one is first", just that the price of being first is to be a servant of all. And that has NOTHING to do with clothing or what sort of chair you sit on. It has everything to do with what service we're talking about: preaching and teaching, laying down one's life for one's friends, etc. " to go out and pass on to others everything that they were doing because there was not supposed to be a distinction between what they were doing and what those they taught were to do. This is consistent with what He told them in Matt 20 and 23." Here's the problem with this INTERPRETATION - it doesn't match the image of the the Church community we get in Acts where there most certainly IS a difference in power and authority between the Apostles and the deacons - namely, the power to grant the gift of the Holy Spirit, as well as make executive decisions for the whole community. There's no evidence of the communities not being directed from higher authority leading straight back to the apostles. We're talking ABOUT A KINGDOM after all, and in all kingdoms, there are hierarchies even though all people have a fundamental unity and membership, not all are the same or have the same authority. Jesus didn't say "there are no seats at my right or left" just that who gets to sit where was not his to give. Jesus' parables of the servants to get different amounts of talents and reap different sizes of rewards (10, 5, and 2 cities) also reflect what his Kingdom is like: not everyone gets the same gifts or the same rewards. Not everyone has the same teaching authority. "Some people see the meeting in Jerusalem to discuss and settle whether gentiles should be circumsized and keep the Law of Moses as an early College of Cardinals imagining a bunch of old men all in scarlet robes settling the doctrines of the faith for the rest of the Church from their gilded thrones. This was not the setting that Jesus had around the campfires with His disciples and not what they would have continued with after He was ascended. What in the world does clothing and chairs vs campfires have to do with whether the MEN involved have or don't have teaching authority???? It's not the clothes or accidents of place and condition that make someone a Bishop but the laying on of hands! And desire alone (cf. Acts about Simon the magician) doesn't make a man "an apostle". Paul didn't become an apostle just by learning scripture and being a great preacher. He went up to Jerusalem and was accepted by the others. "It was a bunch of brothers submitting what they had received from the Lord and looking for His voice in the midst of them." Yes. But what they're wearing or sitting on doesn't change this so what's your argument? That Catholic bishops couldn't possibly be brothers submitting what they had received from the Lord...merely because they're not dressed as 1st century fishermen? Or they're not "brothers" unless they wear - in every age - the uniform of the lowest class, such that every generation they need to adjust their waredrobe so as to never get ahead or behind the fashions???? When James spoke, everyone heard the voice of their Shepherd and it was settled. This is the way that New Testament meetings are to be conducted. You do not have a bunch of oligarchy boys sitting upon guilded thrones in kingdly robes as the common people sit at their feet waiting for them to say what God is saying to them. Again you're looking at the outside, not the inside. What difference does it make what they're wearing or sitting on or their age? The fact remains that the meeting in Jerusalem wasn't a democratic town meeting but a reunion of the apostles, Peter and James spoke (as one would expect in a Council) and they sent 2 representatives to Antioch to make sure the community of believers there obeyed their teaching...i.e. they didn't just write the teaching down (that they did, to be sure, in a letter = scripture) but they also sent living representatives with interpretive and teaching authority to make sure the opposing groups obeyed them. You are not reading Acts simply and working forward from there to the earliest Church letters and writings of the Martyrs, but isolating individual verses and reading them fromn the a priori that whatever they're talking about, it must match the Protestant theory and if it doesn't, ignore it or shoehorn modern Protestant congregationalist theory in anyway. "Jesus came in the appearance of a common man born in a stable, yet men still seek Him in Temples of Stone among men in kingly garments sourounded by gold and purple. But the wise ones who find Him, do so among shepherds in common surroundings." It's not the temples of stone that Catholics go to Mass to see, as indeed we can (and do) worship anywhere - from nuclear submarines, to living rooms, to open fields, to humble chapels, to massive cathedrals. It's not the sound system or hip and cool pastor bob's we're there to see, but the Lord, present with us in the Eucharist. You REFUSE to accept the presence of the Lord in the humblest of surroundings: bread and wine, yet accuse US of being awed by temples of stone?  Some Protestants snarkily claim "if I believed Jesus was really present in the wafer, I'd approach him on my knees!" but then accuse us of idolatry when we kneel! Or accuse us of "being pagan" when we logically, build nice looking churches in honor of the Lord and for his worship. Damned if we do, damned if we don't, but always damned a priori.First it's claimed that none of our dogmas or doctrines are "biblical" until we show you exhaustively au contraire. Then the goal post is moved to [Harrumph] well, your interpretation is wrong, but our's - thanks to Pastor Bob's brilliant study of the original Aramaic and Greek (which presumably Catholics never studied even though all the CATHOLIC universities originally taught Hebrew, Latin and Greek as a matter of course), we know THIS and not THAT is the "right" interpretation. (And then, completely unaware of the contradiction, you'll go on to claim that our doctrine of apostolic teaching authority is unbiblical too but somehow YOUR little church's elders have teaching authority.I'm just trying to get people a) to realize that we base more of our doctrines and dogmas on scripture than most Protestants are even aware of and b) our ARGUMENTS from scripture are alot more solid than the red herrings and straw men caricatures lots of Pastors paint to score cheap points with against us. You might STILL reject our conclusions, but you can't honestly claim we're not arriving at them from scripture and some interpretive series of reasons. |
|
First of all, I never said that your views are not arrived through the study of scripture, I just hink you are selective of the scriptures you use. As I am sure that you think of me. And Jesus is the one who specifically told the apostles (Peter among them) that they should not have special garments, special seats, or special titles (Matt. 23) like those sitting in Moses seat in the Old Covenant. So, allow me to ask two simple questions: (1) What does your church feel about these specific commands to the original apostles. How do they get around the Lord's words and His meaning when it comes to having exalted places above the rest of the people as demonstrated by things like garments, thrones, or titles in front of their names? (As you know, I think that Protestant denominations ignore the Lord on this equally). (2) What do you think was meant in Hebrews 7-10 when the Word reveals a change of priesthood from the Levitical to the Melchizadek? It sounds to me that God found fault with the Old Covenant with its priesthood and laws because the priests died and had to be replaced and because the priests had their own sins. The Melchizadek is the Priesthood of Jesus alone who has the power of an endless life and is sinless. The Levitical order was done away with, yet Catholics seem to feel that they have the continuation of this priesthood. |
My view of the Levitical Priesthood is that it was a preparatory priesthood for Israel, to prepare Israel for receiving the higher Melchizedek priesthood. I don't see it as "finding fault" with any covenants at all. It was given to prepare. It was the Levitical/Aaronic Priesthood that John the Baptist used when baptising in the River Jordan. I find the name of the Melchizedek priesthood to be very interesting. It was named after the ruler of Salem, who Abraham paid his tithes to. Melchizedek was obviously an exceedingly righteous man, and though the priesthood is obviously The Lord's power and authority, it seems that this particular priesthood was named after Melchizedek probably to avoid the over-use/casual use of God's name. Sorry for the topic hijack. |
|
No problem. Not a hyjack to me if you answer how you see that answers to my questions. I believe that Melchizadek is one of the many examples of a manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ. He is called the King of Peace and the King of Righteousness. I know of only one man who can have these titles. He is said to have no beginning of days or end of life. Again, only God can have this lack of geneology. Finally, as I read these chapters from Hebrews, the point is that in the New Covenant, there is only one Mediator between Christ and man and that is Jesus. This priesthood of Jesus only is said to predate the Levitical priesthood because Abraham submitted to this priesthood and Levi was in Abraham when he did it. It does not seem to make the point if Abraham was not submitting to and paying tithes to anyone byt Jesus only. To further proove the point, this priest forever after the order of Melchizadek, ministered bread and wine to Abraham which would seem to further hint to this solo priest's true identity. |