Where is the reformation in the Bible?
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
DANIEL 14:31
DRA
And in the den there were seven lions, and they had given to them two carcasses every day, and two sheep: but then they were not given unto them, that they might devour Daniel.
NABRE
They threw Daniel into a lions’ den, where he remained six days.
NRSVACE
They threw Daniel into the lions’ den, and he was there for six days.
NRSVCE
They threw Daniel into the lions’ den, and he was there for six days.
RSVCE
They threw Daniel into the lions’ den, and he was there for six days.
There shouldn't be when you have posted in one thread exampled by the admitted aforementioned anti-Protestant who calls Protestantism heresy and Protestants heretic's. And admits his mission here is to belabor that accusation.
Where is the reformation in the Bible?
I see. You earlier accused me of being anti-Catholic and now show that in point of fact you were speaking of your heart.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Dan 6:16
Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.
Dan 6:17
And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
Dan 6:18
Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.
Dan 6:19
Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions.
Dan 6:20
And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?
Dan 6:21
Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever.
Dan 6:22
My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.
Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.
Dan 6:17
And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
Dan 6:18
Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.
Dan 6:19
Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions.
Dan 6:20
And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?
Dan 6:21
Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever.
Dan 6:22
My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.
@Ziggy, those verses in chapter 6 would say Daniel was only in the lion's den overnight. Not 6 days as detailed in Daniel 14.
Daniel ch 6 tells the real story of Daniel in the Lion's Den. It is in everyone's Bible - not like "chapter 14" in the "long version" of Daniel that includes the bogus, Greek-only parts.
Daniel only has 12 chapters, some written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic.
Susannah is a deuterocanonical addition placed at the beginning of "long Daniel" - Bel and the Dragon is placed at the end.
Daniel had a ONE NIGHT STAND in the Lion's Den.
Habakkuk was not raised from the dead - a century earlier - and carried by an angel by his hair to Babylon with a pot of stew to give Daniel.
Come on people.
Two totally different accounts of Daniel in the Lions Den - one real - one bogus.
Daniel only has 12 chapters, some written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic.
Susannah is a deuterocanonical addition placed at the beginning of "long Daniel" - Bel and the Dragon is placed at the end.
Daniel had a ONE NIGHT STAND in the Lion's Den.
Habakkuk was not raised from the dead - a century earlier - and carried by an angel by his hair to Babylon with a pot of stew to give Daniel.
Come on people.
Two totally different accounts of Daniel in the Lions Den - one real - one bogus.
There are also Greek-only parts of Esther. The real book of Esther never mentions God. The Greek-only parts do mention God - well, good - but Esther has no GLARING CONTRADICTION like the "long, 14-chapter Daniel" has with the REAL 12-chapter Daniel.
My son became Greek Orthodox - his wedding was the coolest wedding I have ever seen.
I got an ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE - there is a difference in the NUMBERING of the Psalms - there is a difference in the ORDER of the prophetical books; and there is a tad more than even the Catholic Bible has.
The great thing about ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE is - its Ole Testament is based on Septuagint. Its New Testament is a plain ole New King James Version.
A lot about ORTHODOX I like - but Daniel didn't spend no WEEK in the lions den.
No way.
I got an ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE - there is a difference in the NUMBERING of the Psalms - there is a difference in the ORDER of the prophetical books; and there is a tad more than even the Catholic Bible has.
The great thing about ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE is - its Ole Testament is based on Septuagint. Its New Testament is a plain ole New King James Version.
A lot about ORTHODOX I like - but Daniel didn't spend no WEEK in the lions den.
No way.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
I see that, but I also see a stone being rolled before the entrance and an Angel coming down to remove it.
Some people see days.. I see the message :)
HUGS
For reference. Deuterocanonical books:
The deuterocanonical books are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament but which are considered non-canonical by Protestant denominations.Wikipedia
The deuterocanonical books are books and passages considered by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East to be canonical books of the Old Testament but which are considered non-canonical by Protestant denominations.Wikipedia
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Me too. Those would have been some very skinny lions.I'm glad it wasn't a thousand years..
HUGS
Wafer thin in fact. ;)
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
The question is: Where is the reformation in the Bible?
And I know you all talking about the great divide between Catholic and Protestant..
But I believe the reformation is still in progress.
In my opinion, no religion has all truth. But they all have piece of it.
When you consider we all come from God, we all have a piece of truth within us.
It's when one religion tries to bully other religions, that we all lose sight of the puzzle.
And the ones doing the bullying get chased by she bears.
Consider the great divide between Judaism and Christianity.
Why was the seperation necessary?
Because those who were in control were becoming bullies.
Now whether you be Jewish or Catholic or Christian...
Whether you say Paul or Peter or John...
We are a work in progress.
And until we figure out how to stop bullying each other and set aside manmade traditions..
we're just I guess you could say in limbo..
Where not really getting anywhere at all.
So, if you really wanted to repair the rift, then we would come together and cast out the leaven and add a bit of salt.
And eventually, feed the world.
If you seek utopia, you have to be utopia.
Hugs
And I know you all talking about the great divide between Catholic and Protestant..
But I believe the reformation is still in progress.
In my opinion, no religion has all truth. But they all have piece of it.
When you consider we all come from God, we all have a piece of truth within us.
It's when one religion tries to bully other religions, that we all lose sight of the puzzle.
And the ones doing the bullying get chased by she bears.
Consider the great divide between Judaism and Christianity.
Why was the seperation necessary?
Because those who were in control were becoming bullies.
Now whether you be Jewish or Catholic or Christian...
Whether you say Paul or Peter or John...
We are a work in progress.
And until we figure out how to stop bullying each other and set aside manmade traditions..
we're just I guess you could say in limbo..
Where not really getting anywhere at all.
So, if you really wanted to repair the rift, then we would come together and cast out the leaven and add a bit of salt.
And eventually, feed the world.
If you seek utopia, you have to be utopia.
Hugs
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation
Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.
Interpreting the Reformation is complicated business. But like many complicated things, it can be simplified sufficiently well that even non-experts can get the gist of it. Here's what seems a fairly accurate but simplified summary of the issue: The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan's expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary.
Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is "Come out from among them" and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.
Yet for most Protestants, even for most conservative Protestants, this is not so. They believe God "raised up" Luther and the other Reformers to restore the Gospel in its purity. They regret that this required a break with Roman Catholics (hence the tragedy) but fidelity to Christ, on their view, demanded it (hence the necessity).
Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.
From Bouyer's conclusion we can infer at least two things.
First, Protestantism can't be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the "full flowering of the principles of the Reformation"? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It's these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That's one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.
In that regard, Bouyer's brief introduction is worth quoting in full:
The writer, who carved out his way step by step, or rather, saw it opening before his eyes, hopes now to help along those who are still where he started. In addition, he would like to show those he has rejoined how a little more understanding of the others, above all a greater fidelity to their own gift, could help their 'separated brethren' to receive it in their turn. In this hope he offers his book to all who wish to be faithful to the truth, first, to the Word of God, but also to the truth of men as they are, not as our prejudices and habits impel us to see them.
Bouyer, then, addresses both Protestants and Catholics. To the Protestants, he says, in effect, "It is fidelity to our Protestant principles, properly understood, that has led me into the Catholic Church." To the Catholics, he says, "Protestantism isn't as antithetical to the Catholic Faith as you suppose. It has positive principles, as well as negative ones. Its positive principles, properly understood, belong to the Catholic Tradition, which we Catholics can see if we approach Protestantism with a bit of understanding and openness."
Bouyer's argument is that the Reformation's main principle was essentially Catholic: "Luther's basic intuition, on which Protestantism continuously draws for its abiding vitality, so far from being hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition, or inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles, was a return to the clearest elements of their teaching, and in the most direct line of that tradition."
1. Sola Gratia. What was the Reformation's main principle? Not, as many Catholics and even some Protestants think, "private judgment" in religion. According to Bouyer, "the true fundamental principle of Protestantism is the gratuitousness of salvation" sola gratia. He writes, "In the view of Luther, as well as of all those faithful to his essential teaching, man without grace can, strictly speaking, do nothing of the slightest value for salvation. He can neither dispose himself for it, nor work for it in any independent fashion. Even his acceptance of grace is the work of grace. To Luther and his authentic followers, justifying faith . . . is quite certainly, the first and most fundamental grace."
Bouyer then shows how, contrary to what many Protestants and some Catholics think, salvation sola gratia is also Catholic teaching. He underscores the point to any Catholics who might think otherwise:
"If, then, any Catholic and there would seem to be many such these days whose first impulse is to reject the idea that man, without grace, can do nothing towards his salvation, that he cannot even accept the grace offered except by a previous grace, that the very faith which acknowledges the need of grace is a purely gratuitous gift, he would do well to attend closely to the texts we are about to quote."
READ MORE HERE
Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.
Interpreting the Reformation is complicated business. But like many complicated things, it can be simplified sufficiently well that even non-experts can get the gist of it. Here's what seems a fairly accurate but simplified summary of the issue: The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan's expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary.
Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is "Come out from among them" and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.
Yet for most Protestants, even for most conservative Protestants, this is not so. They believe God "raised up" Luther and the other Reformers to restore the Gospel in its purity. They regret that this required a break with Roman Catholics (hence the tragedy) but fidelity to Christ, on their view, demanded it (hence the necessity).
Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.
From Bouyer's conclusion we can infer at least two things.
First, Protestantism can't be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the "full flowering of the principles of the Reformation"? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It's these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That's one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.
In that regard, Bouyer's brief introduction is worth quoting in full:
Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.
This book is a personal witness, a plain account of the way in which a Protestant came to feel himself obliged in conscience to give his adherence to the Catholic Church. No sentiment of revulsion turned him from the religion fostered in him by a Protestant upbringing followed by several years in the ministry. The fact is, he has never rejected it. It was his desire to explore its depths, its full scope, that led him, step by step, to a genuinely spiritual movement stemming from the teachings of the Gospel, and Protestantism as an institution, or rather complexus of institutions, hostile to one another as well as to the Catholic Church. The study of this conflict brought him to detect the fatal error which drove the spiritual movement of Protestantism out of the one Church. He saw the necessity of returning to that Church, not in order to reject any of the positive Christian elements of his religious life, but to enable them, at last, to develop without hindrance.
The writer, who carved out his way step by step, or rather, saw it opening before his eyes, hopes now to help along those who are still where he started. In addition, he would like to show those he has rejoined how a little more understanding of the others, above all a greater fidelity to their own gift, could help their 'separated brethren' to receive it in their turn. In this hope he offers his book to all who wish to be faithful to the truth, first, to the Word of God, but also to the truth of men as they are, not as our prejudices and habits impel us to see them.
Bouyer, then, addresses both Protestants and Catholics. To the Protestants, he says, in effect, "It is fidelity to our Protestant principles, properly understood, that has led me into the Catholic Church." To the Catholics, he says, "Protestantism isn't as antithetical to the Catholic Faith as you suppose. It has positive principles, as well as negative ones. Its positive principles, properly understood, belong to the Catholic Tradition, which we Catholics can see if we approach Protestantism with a bit of understanding and openness."
Bouyer's argument is that the Reformation's main principle was essentially Catholic: "Luther's basic intuition, on which Protestantism continuously draws for its abiding vitality, so far from being hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition, or inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles, was a return to the clearest elements of their teaching, and in the most direct line of that tradition."
1. Sola Gratia. What was the Reformation's main principle? Not, as many Catholics and even some Protestants think, "private judgment" in religion. According to Bouyer, "the true fundamental principle of Protestantism is the gratuitousness of salvation" sola gratia. He writes, "In the view of Luther, as well as of all those faithful to his essential teaching, man without grace can, strictly speaking, do nothing of the slightest value for salvation. He can neither dispose himself for it, nor work for it in any independent fashion. Even his acceptance of grace is the work of grace. To Luther and his authentic followers, justifying faith . . . is quite certainly, the first and most fundamental grace."
Bouyer then shows how, contrary to what many Protestants and some Catholics think, salvation sola gratia is also Catholic teaching. He underscores the point to any Catholics who might think otherwise:
"If, then, any Catholic and there would seem to be many such these days whose first impulse is to reject the idea that man, without grace, can do nothing towards his salvation, that he cannot even accept the grace offered except by a previous grace, that the very faith which acknowledges the need of grace is a purely gratuitous gift, he would do well to attend closely to the texts we are about to quote."
READ MORE HERE
Louis Bouyer entered the RRCC's Purgatory in 2004.
He was formerly a French Lutheran minister who converted to the RRCC in 1939.
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
