Can you sum this up in a couple of sentences?

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The Reformation Day Post: VERY Spooky

The Young, Textless, and Reformed


Defending the historic view of the Holy Scriptures

The Reformation Day Post: VERY Spooky

Posted bytaylordesotoOctober 31, 2019Posted inUncategorizedTags:KJV, Textual Criticism, TR

In the Beginning

..there were several providential events that are often forgotten leading up to the Reformation. In the mid 15th century, two things occur that contribute to the Protestant movement. The first is the construction of the printing press in Guttenberg in 1436, and the second is the fall of Constantinople shortly after that. Up to that point in the west, the Bible that was used was Latin, and the means of reproducing that Bible was hand-copying. When Constantinople fell, the Greek speaking people of God came flooding into the West, bringing with them their language and their Bibles. Bibles continued to be hand-copied for some time after this event, but it wasn’t long until the printing press was purposed for printing the Bible in all sorts of languages. During this pre-Reformation period, men like Wycliffe had already started producing Bibles in English, and in response, the Roman church said that the Bible was only authoritative insofar as it was approved by the church, and the only Bible approved by the church was the Latin Vulgate as it had come to exist during that time. The Roman church was not mighty enough to stop the events that had been started at the fall of Constantinople and the invention of the printing press, however. In 1514, the Complutensian Polyglot New Testament had been printed, and two years later in 1516, Erasmus’ first edition of the Novum Testamentum was hot on the press. There was nothing that Rome could do to stop what would happen next.

On October 31, 1517, a German Roman Catholic Monk named Martin Luther posted 95 theses which detailed the places the Western church need to change. This moment marks the date that most people consider the Protestant Reformation to have officially started. During this time, the battle for the Bible centered around one question: In what way are the Scriptures authoritative. On one hand, the Roman church said that the Scriptures were authoritative by virtue of the church. On the other hand, the Protestants said that the Bible was authoritative in itself, it was self-authenticating (αυτοπιστος). The doctrine of the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures was in fact the fundamental principle that drove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and thus drove the entire Reformation. The only refutation for the doctrine of Rome was to return to the Scriptural reality that God Himself gave authority to the Bible. This doctrine of Scripture ultimately becomes a staple in Protestant doctrine and is codified in all of the major confessions of the 17th century.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

taylordesoto blog
There is a reason that the Reformed stood on the doctrine of Scripture which said that the Bible was self-authenticating. It was the only response to the Papists that would have resulted in the success of Protestantism.

 

[epostle]

The Reformation Day Post: VERY Spooky

Are you aware that "sola scriptura" is a Latin phrase?

If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did.
(Preserved Smith. 177)

The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church. (Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [P], 1383)

Protestants . . . read blood-curdling stories of the Inquisition and of atrocities committed by Catholics, but what does the average Protestant know of Protestant atrocities in the centuries succeeding the Reformation? Nothing, unless he makes a special study of the subject . . . Yet they are perfectly well known to every scholar . . .

Now granting for the sake of argument, that all that is usually said of Catholic persecutions is true, the fact remains that Protestants, as such, have no right to denounce them, as if such deeds were characteristic of Catholics only. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones . . . It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism – Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley — advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the ‘crime’ of heresy . . . Rousseau says truly: “The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .” Auguste Comte also writes: “The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached.”
(Philosophie Positive, IV, 51)

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism — the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so! . . .

At all events, the argument that the persecutions for heresy, perpetrated by the Catholics, constitute a reason why one should not enter the Catholic Church, has not a particle more force than a similar argument would have against one’s entering the Protestant Church. In both there have been those deserving of blame in this respect, and what applies to one applies also to the other.
(Stoddard, 204-205, 209-210)

Often the resistance to tyranny and the demand for religious freedom are combined, as in the Puritan revolution in England; and the victors, having achieved supremacy, then set up a new tyranny and a fresh intolerance.
(Harkness [P], 222)

Lord Baltimore allowed several hundred Puritans, unwelcome in Episcopalian Virginia, to enter Maryland in 1648.
(Armstrong, see Ellis, below, p. 37)

For the first time in history . . . all churches would be tolerated, and . . . none would be the agent of the government . . . Catholics and Protestants side by side on terms of equality and toleration unknown in the mother country . . . The effort proved vain; for . . . the Puritan element . . . October, 1654, repealed the Act of Toleration and outlawed the Catholics . . . condemning ten of them to death, four of whom were executed . . . From . . . 1718 down to the outbreak of the Revolution, the Catholics of Maryland were cut off from all participation in public life, to say nothing of the enactments against their religious services and . . . schools for Catholic instruction . . . During the half-century the Catholics had governed Maryland they had not been guilty of a single act of religious oppression.
(John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1956, 36, 38-39)

The principle which the Reformation had upheld in the youth of its rebellion — the right of private judgment — was as completely rejected by the Protestant leaders as by the Catholics . . . Toleration was now definitely less after the Reformation than before it.
(Durant , 456; referring to the year 1555)

Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment or death. . . . he was convinced that God had destined all Anabaptists to hell.
(Durant , 423)

A regular inquisition was set up in Saxony, with Melanchthon on the bench, and under it many persons were punished, some with death, some with life imprisonment, and some with exile.
(Smith , 177)

The persecution of the Anabaptists began in Zurich . . . The penalties enjoined by the Town Council of Zurich were ‘drowning, burning, or beheading,’ according as it seemed advisable . . . ‘It is our will,’ the Council proclaimed, ‘that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared.’
(Janssen, V, 153-157)

In his Dialogues of 1535, Bucer called on governments to exterminate by fire and sword all professing a false religion, and even their wives, children and cattle.
(Armstrong; Janssen, V, 367-368, 290-291)

His [John Knox’s] conviction . . . harked back to the darkest practices of the Inquisition . . . Every heretic was to be put to death, and cities predominantly heretical were to be smitten with the sword and utterly destroyed: “To the carnal man this may appear a . . . severe judgment . . . Yet we find no exception, but all are appointed to the cruel death. But in such cases God wills that all . . . desist from reasoning when commandment is given to execute his judgments.”
(Durant , 614; citing Edwin Muir, John Knox, London: 1920, 142)

In the preface to the Institutes he [John Calvin] admitted the right of the government to put heretics to death . . . He thought that Christians should hate the enemies of God . . . Those who defended heretics . . . should be equally punished.
(Smith , 178)

[During Calvin’s reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546] “58 persons were put to death for heresy.”
(Durant , 473)

Melanchthon, in a letter to Calvin and Bullinger, gave ‘thanks to the Son of God’ . . . and called the burning [of Michael Servetus] ‘a pious and memorable example to all posterity.’ Bucer declared from his pulpit in Strasbourg that Servetus had deserved to be disemboweled and torn to pieces. Bullinger, generally humane, agreed that civil magistrates must punish blasphemy with death.
(Durant , 484)

Persecution, including death penalties for heresy, is not just a Catholic failing. It is clearly also a Protestant one, and a general “blind spot” of the Middle Ages, much like abortion is in our own supposedly “enlightened” age. Furthermore, it is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance. The evidence thus far presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. (Armstrong)
Protestant Inquisitions: "Reformation" Intolerance & Persecution
Most of the citations are from Protestant and secular historians, so think before you accuse me of doctrinal bias.

 

[farouk]

Willie,

That was taken from Book 1, chapter VIII, of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. The chapter heading is, 'The credibility of Scripture sufficiently proved in so far as natural reason admits'.

In three sentences: Human wisdom will not demonstrate the authority of Scripture because it needs the higher authentication by God to confirm how the parts harmonize. Paul expounded on this in 1 Cor 2:5 by preaching, 'with plain and not clever words, relying on the power of the Holy Spirit'. No human writings can affect us this way, piercing the human heart so that human orators are shamed by its content of divine truth.

Oz

@OzSpen
I guess in other words also Calvin meant that Scripture is self-authenticating...

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Are you aware that "sola scriptura" is a Latin phrase?

If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did.
(Preserved Smith. 177)

The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church. (Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [P], 1383)

Protestants . . . read blood-curdling stories of the Inquisition and of atrocities committed by Catholics, but what does the average Protestant know of Protestant atrocities in the centuries succeeding the Reformation? Nothing, unless he makes a special study of the subject . . . Yet they are perfectly well known to every scholar . . .

Now granting for the sake of argument, that all that is usually said of Catholic persecutions is true, the fact remains that Protestants, as such, have no right to denounce them, as if such deeds were characteristic of Catholics only. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones . . . It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism – Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley — advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the ‘crime’ of heresy . . . Rousseau says truly: “The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .” Auguste Comte also writes: “The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached.”
(Philosophie Positive, IV, 51)

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism — the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so! . . .

At all events, the argument that the persecutions for heresy, perpetrated by the Catholics, constitute a reason why one should not enter the Catholic Church, has not a particle more force than a similar argument would have against one’s entering the Protestant Church. In both there have been those deserving of blame in this respect, and what applies to one applies also to the other.
(Stoddard, 204-205, 209-210)

Often the resistance to tyranny and the demand for religious freedom are combined, as in the Puritan revolution in England; and the victors, having achieved supremacy, then set up a new tyranny and a fresh intolerance.
(Harkness [P], 222)

Lord Baltimore allowed several hundred Puritans, unwelcome in Episcopalian Virginia, to enter Maryland in 1648.
(Armstrong, see Ellis, below, p. 37)

For the first time in history . . . all churches would be tolerated, and . . . none would be the agent of the government . . . Catholics and Protestants side by side on terms of equality and toleration unknown in the mother country . . . The effort proved vain; for . . . the Puritan element . . . October, 1654, repealed the Act of Toleration and outlawed the Catholics . . . condemning ten of them to death, four of whom were executed . . . From . . . 1718 down to the outbreak of the Revolution, the Catholics of Maryland were cut off from all participation in public life, to say nothing of the enactments against their religious services and . . . schools for Catholic instruction . . . During the half-century the Catholics had governed Maryland they had not been guilty of a single act of religious oppression.
(John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1956, 36, 38-39)

The principle which the Reformation had upheld in the youth of its rebellion — the right of private judgment — was as completely rejected by the Protestant leaders as by the Catholics . . . Toleration was now definitely less after the Reformation than before it.
(Durant , 456; referring to the year 1555)

Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment or death. . . . he was convinced that God had destined all Anabaptists to hell.
(Durant , 423)

A regular inquisition was set up in Saxony, with Melanchthon on the bench, and under it many persons were punished, some with death, some with life imprisonment, and some with exile.
(Smith , 177)

The persecution of the Anabaptists began in Zurich . . . The penalties enjoined by the Town Council of Zurich were ‘drowning, burning, or beheading,’ according as it seemed advisable . . . ‘It is our will,’ the Council proclaimed, ‘that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared.’
(Janssen, V, 153-157)

In his Dialogues of 1535, Bucer called on governments to exterminate by fire and sword all professing a false religion, and even their wives, children and cattle.
(Armstrong; Janssen, V, 367-368, 290-291)

His [John Knox’s] conviction . . . harked back to the darkest practices of the Inquisition . . . Every heretic was to be put to death, and cities predominantly heretical were to be smitten with the sword and utterly destroyed: “To the carnal man this may appear a . . . severe judgment . . . Yet we find no exception, but all are appointed to the cruel death. But in such cases God wills that all . . . desist from reasoning when commandment is given to execute his judgments.”
(Durant , 614; citing Edwin Muir, John Knox, London: 1920, 142)

In the preface to the Institutes he [John Calvin] admitted the right of the government to put heretics to death . . . He thought that Christians should hate the enemies of God . . . Those who defended heretics . . . should be equally punished.
(Smith , 178)

[During Calvin’s reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546] “58 persons were put to death for heresy.”
(Durant , 473)

Melanchthon, in a letter to Calvin and Bullinger, gave ‘thanks to the Son of God’ . . . and called the burning [of Michael Servetus] ‘a pious and memorable example to all posterity.’ Bucer declared from his pulpit in Strasbourg that Servetus had deserved to be disemboweled and torn to pieces. Bullinger, generally humane, agreed that civil magistrates must punish blasphemy with death.
(Durant , 484)

Persecution, including death penalties for heresy, is not just a Catholic failing. It is clearly also a Protestant one, and a general “blind spot” of the Middle Ages, much like abortion is in our own supposedly “enlightened” age. Furthermore, it is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance. The evidence thus far presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. (Armstrong)
Protestant Inquisitions: "Reformation" Intolerance & Persecution
Most of the citations are from Protestant and secular historians, so think before you accuse me of doctrinal bias.

A good article with which I might say that I agree.

I may be off topic and could have been off topic during this discussion, but for me the subject or ISSUE is not the past or history of the Church,

but the CURRENT, UNIVERSAL relationship and dealings of the Church -- Roman Catholic and Protestant indistinguishable -- with SCRIPTURE. For me the pathos exists in the for the last less than one hundred years' strategic and UNITED, planned and worked out and highly successful CORRUPTION of Scripture with the CLEAR INTENTION TO DECEIVE the whole Church in order to UNITE it in its numerous HERESIES, every one of which was inherited from Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholic Tradition.

Now to me it is obvious that improvement on manuscript compilation can only damage this demonic plan while the evil clandestine hopes and prospects of the deeper Church are reached and furthered through masterful improvisation on translations which don't need pristine Scripture at all. Roman Catholic and all the Catholic Church including Protestantism and Reformed Protestantism are become one in this her desperate and final effort in her long history of demonic Antichrist rule and terror.

 

[epostle]

Roman Catholic and all the Catholic Church including Protestantism and Reformed Protestantism are become one in this her desperate and final effort in her long history of demonic Antichrist rule and terror.

Yea, that's what you, the JW"s, the SDA's, the Christadelphians, and every made-in-America cult that popped up in the last 250 years keep saying. And loudly.

1 Corinthians 13:1​

 

[Enoch111]

Are you aware that "sola scriptura" is a Latin phrase?

So what? Latin was the language of theologians and Christian scholars of that time. But is that a Bible truth or not? You and your cohorts deny it vehemently since it demolishes your False Christianity.

 

[Yehren]

That's true, however "the Bible, which was compiled by men relying on scholarship, prayer and tradition", IS THE CHURCH!

Which Jesus promised us that even Hell would not prevail against it.

There harmony with all three, one is not "over" the other.

How could there be?

Conflicts arise when different meanings for the same words are used, different definitions. Without an agreement on what certain words mean, (infallibility, authority, Magisterium, Tradition, the biblical relationship between Scripture and Tradition), discussion just goes in circles. We are not speaking the same language.

Me puer pristini altare. An linguae non sufficient?

The authority of Scripture has always been a Tradition of the Church, which is more puzzling when a different language is used.

Ich kann in dieser Sprache kaum lesen und schreiben, wenn Sie es vorziehen.

I'm assuming you're Catholic, as I am?

 

[Yehren]

Since the Bible itself says that there are authoritative sources of information about God that are not in the Bible, and since the Bible says that we are justified by works and not by faith alone,"sola scriptura" is clearly an erroneous doctrine.

 

[farouk]

Yes, I tend to look at other translations anyway- but many on here frown upon that x

It can be good to compare translations! I do like the King James myself.

 

[farouk]

What he's saying is that the preaching of the word of God is the word of God, and needs no great flights of rhetoric, but only faithfulness.

Sounds a good sentiment!

 

[farouk]

That is very true - never been on a forum that frowns upon so much ! Lol

Wait til you look at some other forums... :)

 

[Butterfly]

Wait til you look at some other forums... :)

Yes, I have heard about some of them since being on here - but what does it say about how Christian's treat one another !
Irrespective of whether or not they are Christian's with a small c or big C - all supposedly read scripture and follow Jesus's example.
Remember years ago the wwjd ( what would jesus do ) did the rounds , well wwjs ( what would jesus say ) perhaps should be something we all say to ourselves before we write anything, perhaps preceded by ' hold every thought captive to the Lord' put distance between our reactions and our responses x
Rita

 

[farouk]

Yes, I have heard about some of them since being on here - but what does it say about how Christian's treat one another !
Irrespective of whether or not they are Christian's with a small c or big C - all supposedly read scripture and follow Jesus's example.
Remember years ago the wwjd ( what would jesus do ) did the rounds , well wwjs ( what would jesus say ) perhaps should be something we all say to ourselves before we write anything, perhaps preceded by ' hold eve

Well, I do think we need to focus on Scripture's treatment of the theme of fellowship; John's First Epistle is such encouraging reading; and in the end 'truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ'. :)

 

[OzSpen]

@OzSpen
I guess in other words also Calvin meant that Scripture is self-authenticating...

Seems as though he meant something like that. Do you consider Scripture is self-authenticating?

See: What does it mean that the Bible is self-authenticating?

I could not use that approach in Australia with skeptics. They want evidence that the Bible can be trusted. What proofs should we give? Or, are proofs out of the league for Bible-believing Christians?

 

[Steve Owen]

Seems as though he meant something like that. Do you consider Scripture is self-authenticating?

See: What does it mean that the Bible is self-authenticating?

I could not use that approach in Australia with skeptics. They want evidence that the Bible can be trusted. What proofs should we give? Or, are proofs out of the league for Bible-believing Christians?

What sort of proofs are these guys looking for? I tend to find that such people are looking to find reasons not to believe.
But the guys mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3 have all turned up recently in ancient Babylonian documents. Is that the sort of thing?

 

[Yehren]

Wait til you look at some other forums... :)

There are some people out there who are spiritually hurting, and some of them take it out on anyone who comes near. This is a little island of Christian decency; I sincerely hope it stays that way.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I think I got through just the first three sentences... The I gave up.

I won't bother asking if one of the early "Church Father's" wrote this, nor which one.

The first 3 sentences I read and figured out are brilliant. But, what good are they?

The first sentence says that it doesn't matter what man thinks, God is right, and is right without man agreeing with him!

The second sentence says that we needed an Apostle to explain the ways of God, just as we need a dumb ass like me to explain the second sentence, which was written by another dumb ass trying to explain why we need dumb asses, even though God doesn't.

The third sentence says even though God doesn't need our help, a man of God, though he may be a dumb ass, helps to understand.

The early Church Father's and even some Protestants like Calvin, I just believe loved to hear themselves talk and liked to show off their literal ability. I appreciate them and all, but I am much more appreciative of plain speakers like Iraneaus and Luther.

Wise men don't have to prove they are wise... They just have to be wise to prove they are such.

And... Perhaps I am totally wrong in what the text was saying. But that's not my fault. It's the writer's fault if they truly wanted me to understand.

I think that because you didn't attach the "in vain" part throughout where the author intended it to be, you misunderstood..."in vain" was meant to also attach to arguments, the agreement or approval of the church, and other helps, so that the author was saying they were all in vain unless...

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Yea, that's what you, the JW"s, the SDA's, the Christadelphians, and every made-in-America cult that popped up in the last 250 years keep saying. And loudly.

No one before me ever included the whole bunch of Catholic Christianity in cahoots with Roman Catholicism, their undisputed common leader and head. The SDA deserve special mention as covenanted collaborate of ROMAN Catholicism in the CORRUPTION OF THE BIBLE. You must go take some lessons from them how to corrupt -- take their Clear Word Bible, Matthew 28:1 for one good example.

And Paul inspired by the Spirit wrote our name, "Sabbaths' Feast of Christ" as Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name", "eating and drinking of Christ the Nourishment ministered HOLDING TO THE HEAD GROWING WITH THE GROWTH OF GOD".

Not like just above YOU BRAGGED how your Antichrist <cult> the present RCC was <made-in-America>.

From South Africa with no love lost

 

[OzSpen]

What sort of proofs are these guys looking for? I tend to find that such people are looking to find reasons not to believe.
But the guys mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3 have all turned up recently in ancient Babylonian documents. Is that the sort of thing?

Steve,

OT & NT are historical documents that can be supported by the strategies of historical research. Because my background is on research into the historical Jesus, I talk with them through what criteria would be used to demonstrate that Captain James Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia in 1770 in HMS Endeavour. The same criteria are used to investigate whether the terrorism of 9/11 happened. Use the same tests on news items in the Brisbane Courier-Mail from a year ago.

You might like to take a read of one piece of evidence here: 2,500 Year Old Jewish Tablets Discovered in Iraq.

Oz