The Reformation: a Tragic Necessity?

[OldSchool2]

from First Things:

"Jaroslav Pelikan (1923-2006) was the greatest historian of Christian doctrine since Adolf von Harnack, and he was both more comprehensive and more sympathetic to the tradition he studied than was the great scion of German liberal Protestantism. Pelikan also had a knack for framing profound and complex issues in short, memorable statements. 'Jesus Christ is too important to be left to the theologians,' he once wrote. Again, 'Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.' In 1959, on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, he coined another phrase of continuing relevance when he wrote of 'the tragic necessity of the Reformation....'"

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/07/the-reformation-a-tragic-necessity

[Ezra]

People can *dialogue* all they want, but the bottom line is that either a doctrine or practice is biblically-based and sound or it is not. That's when all the dialogue comes to an end.

The Reformation was a tragic necessity because the RCC deliberately rejected everything that John Wycliffe and others were telling it.  They made him a heretic instead of a hero. Now they want to *dialogue* instead of frankly admitting that they were wrong.

[OldSchool2]

21 hours ago, Ezra said:

People can *dialogue* all they want, but the bottom line is that either a doctrine or practice is biblically-based and sound or it is not. That's when all the dialogue comes to an end.

The Reformation was a tragic necessity because the RCC deliberately rejected everything that John Wycliffe and others were telling it....

"... Others," like Luther et al?

"But the necessity of the Reformation is also evident to those who hear in the teaching of Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Cranmer, and others the good news of God’s free and unfettered grace. The Pauline-Augustinian message of grace found expression in the doctrine of justification by faith alone—not 'alone' in the sense of being divorced from a life of holiness and love, but 'alone' in the sense of unmerited, 'apart from the works of the law....'"

[Willa]

I have to agree that it was a necessary evil.  Necessary because the Pope refused to repent but gave into greed, which equals idolatry.  The sale of indulgences was blasphemous.  So many of its doctrines in the name of tradition have strayed from the truth of the Bible.  But the wars that insued were very vicious on both sides.  And they became political because the rule from the vatican was a theocracy.  

To most evangelicals unity is based on the Bible as Sola Scriptura.  Those who ascribe to "no creed but Christ" now have even tossed that out.  The disciples of Christ denomination no longer require people to believe in the resurrection to join their denomination "due to higher textual criticism".  Many other denominations ascribe very loosely to their creeds, listing them but not requiring anyone to ascribe to them.  These include the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ among many others.  Worse, they also seem to have left the moorings of God's Word.  They have become social clubs. I find that "traditionalism is the dead faith of the living" to be very adroit.  My friend who doesn't believe the Bible had to be sure to find a Lutheran church to attend.  Luther made his stand on the Bible!!! To me it is impossible to be even of Lutheran tradition without believing the Bible.  I cannot substitute philosophy for Scripture.  

The church fathers did much to hash out exactly what the Bible said about heresies that arose in the first few hundred years.  I have to give them credit.  And I do believe that many had God given insight.   Others were misguided, such as Origen giving way to gnosticism and Augustine's seeing the Catholic church as the "city of God", replacing Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem, thereby romanticizing the Revelation to be only symbolism. That was philosophy--man's imaginations.  Many of these people had Godly inspiration one moment and, [like Peter who had inspiration to confess Jesus is the Messiah but tried to prevent Jesus from going to the cross the next moment], so also some church fathers inspired new heresies.  They, after all, were but men.  We need to take the good and have wisdom to leave the false behind.   Sola Scriptura.

 

[Ezra]

2 hours ago, Yowm said:

It would have been a little closer to 'Sola Scriptura' if the church had broken that tie.

Correct.  The Reformers tried the middle-of-the-road approach and actually persecuted the Anabaptists and the Baptists. That was a grave mistake.  They also did not oppose the Amillenialism that Augustine had entrenched.

[TehMill]

On 14 July 2016 at 10:38 PM, Ezra said:

Correct.  The Reformers tried the middle-of-the-road approach and actually persecuted the Anabaptists and the Baptists. That was a grave mistake.  They also did not oppose the Amillenialism that Augustine had entrenched.

In short they went back only to the backslidden fathers...not the apostles

 

...still we must be thankful

[Dmorgan]

The reformation was necessary in order to get the Body of Christ back to Biblical roots, freeing it from all the baggage of "tradition". Unfortunately the enlightenment philosophies entered in as well. Pope Pius X wrote an encyclical condemning the infiltration of Modernism into the Catholic Church in the early 1900's. It is obviously from a Catholic perspective, but the warnings were/are poignant. The Protestant Churches were/are suffering from the same disease which found its beginnings during the Renaissance.  And some early protestant theologians were way off on their Biblical interpretation. 

But all in all it was a necessary event.

[simplejeff]

On 8/3/2016 at 5:20 AM, TehMill said:

In short they went back only to the backslidden fathers...not the apostles

 

...still we must be thankful

Not back to the so-called  fallen fathers,   but forward out of darkness into the MARVELOUS LIGHT (or TOWARDS LIGHT anyway) !

[simplejeff]

On 7/12/2016 at 2:04 PM, Ezra said:

People can *dialogue* all they want, but the bottom line is that either a doctrine or practice is biblically-based and sound or it is not. That's when all the dialogue comes to an end.

The Reformation was a tragic necessity because the RCC deliberately rejected everything that John Wycliffe and others were telling it.  They made him a heretic instead of a hero. Now they want to *dialogue* instead of frankly admitting that they were wrong.

Since Ezra is missed,   (noting posts wondering / caring where he is) ...

praying for his shalom in Y'SHUA MESSIAH !  (in this life and in the next ! ) Praise be to the FATHER YHWH ALWAYS !

[BobRyan]

On 7/14/2016 at 3:04 PM, Yowm said:

Seems to me the Reformation had a tragic shortfall despite much good that came from it.

Ones like  Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Cranmer, still promoted that the Church be wed to the State and usually this was accomplished through infant baptism.

It would have been a little closer to 'Sola Scriptura' if the church had broken that tie.

Amen. Finding some of the flaws they stood up and called for reform. But that reform would need to keep on rollin' choosing the Bible "time after time" when confronted by opposing traditions of men.