Of the Sabbath itself. Its importance to God... It's Genesis... And it's relevance to our spiritual and physical well being.
Why didnt the Protestant Reformation unite.
- Thread starter Hobie
- 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!
Polemics were hot and heavy in those days and Luther would have been booted off just about every Christian Forum on the internet with our politically correct culture. I applaud both Luther and Zwingli for sticking to their convictions and perhaps they should have left the issue of the Lord's Supper up to each person's convictions...otherwise Luther was definitely right on a strict literal basis of Scripture...THIS IS MY BODY/THIS IS MY BLOOD. In contrast today you have post modern Clintonian Christians running around saying "Well, it all depends on what IS is. lol
It surprises me after thousands of years of study of the science of language those who should be on top of it all—Christians—, cannot distinguish 'is' is mostly comparative / figurative / metaphysical rather than literal or identical. Nothing can be more laughable than <a strict literal basis of Scripture...THIS IS MY BODY/THIS IS MY BLOOD> - an equation of GOD and bread and wine!? It's not ridiculous; it's blasphemy - pure barbaric, DIABOLICAL, IDOLATRY. Luther or whoever's, it's SATANIC PAGANISM.
Last edited:
Allow me one attempt -- as near as possible I can to Scripture only,
It took the God of Israel ONE night and ONE day to raise his people from the Red Sea grave and plant them in the land He promised them. In ONE day "He brought us OUT (in Christ) from thence (the DEATH OF SIN) that He might bring us IN (through Christ) to give us (in HIM) which He sware (covenanted through Him) and commanded us (in Christ) to fear The LORD GOD for our good always that He might preserve us (like Christ in Christ) ALIVE forever : AS IT IS THIS DAY the LORD sware .. which the LORD thy GOD (in Christ Jesus) commanded thee to REMEMBER : THE SABBATH DAY, WHEREFORE the LORD blessed the SEVENTH DAY and set the SEVENTH DAY apart" and neither blessed nor hallowed nor finished any or on any of the "six days" in which He created EVERYTHING He created. But "AS IT IS THIS DAY the LORD from all (specifically) HIS, works (of redemption and salvation), RESTED" - his works "in THESE LAST days BY THE SON" to WIN for them everlasting LIFE BY HIS RESURRECTION from the dead ON THE SABBATH DAY GOD THEREFORE MADE TO BE REMEMBERED AND THEREFORE TO BE SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT than any other day or days of HIS mighty works of all times.
But anyone with common sense can see it was not literal, its kind of like the Jews saying how many steps you could take on the Sabbath no matter what or you would be a sinner.
That wasn't my point at all. My point was that both Luther and Zwingli (although opposites on that issue) stuck tenaciously to their convictions, as they esteemed truth over political correctness.
Now on the matter of "common sense", was it 'common sense' for Naaman the captain of the Syrian army to dip himself 7 times in the Jordan River to be healed of his leprosy (2Ki 5:14)?
Or was it 'common sense' for the armies of Israel to walk around Jericho 7 times (Joshua 6:3-5) before seeing the walls fall down? Or Gideon's army to be reduced to 300 (Judges 7:4-7) to take on an innumerable amount of Amalekites and Midianites?
And I suppose those in Noah's day, poo poohed the idea of a 'literal' flood.
So you see, the 'foolishness of God' trumps the 'common sense of man'. (1Cor 1:25)
Last edited:
Or did they esteem their egos above the truth?
All the Reformers should have been totally united in all their beliefs, and if they could not see eye-to-eye they should have worked together to resolve all their issues. They should have presented a united front to the RCC, which they did not do. They also persecuted the Anabaptists instead of abandoning the practice of infant baptism.
Yes hindsight is 20/20 but again, not my point. I was commending them for their standing on their convictions (however wrong or right), unlike today's spirit of ecumenicism, which compromises convictions for the sake of 'together-ness'.
No, simply pointing out your typo... in this case an important difference. You can correct your original post.
You are welcome!
As usual, I am willing to send anyone a free 'zipped' MS Word copy of one of the most interesting books I have ever read on the beginnings of Protestantism. Just PM me.
Opening of the book:
THE DANGEROUS IDEA
To its supporters, the Protestant Reformation represented a necessary correction and long-overdue renewal of the Christian faith, liberating it from its imprisonment to the transient medieval intellectual and social order and preparing it for new challenges as western Europe emerged from the feudalism of the Middle Ages. Christianity was being born all over again, with a new potency and capacity to engage with an emerging new world order.
Yet from its outset, the movement was seen by its opponents as a menacing development, opening the way to religious mayhem, social disintegration, and political chaos. It was not simply that Protestantism seemed to revise, corrupt, or abandon some of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Christian faith. Something far more significant — and ultimately much more dangerous — lay beneath the surface of the Protestant criticisms of the medieval church. At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion: Who has the authority to define its faith? Institutions or individuals? Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible? 3
Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to “official” interpretations handed down by popes or other centralized religious authorities. For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots — from the laity. Luther’s radical doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. There was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation. A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly — seemingly irreversibly — been removed.
The outbreak of the Peasants’ War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If every individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. But who, his critics asked, had “authorized” these so-called authorities? Was not the essence of Luther’s dangerous new idea that there was no such centralized authority? That all Christians had the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit?
In the end, not even the personal authority of Luther could redirect this religious revolution, which anxious governments sought to tame and domesticate. By its very nature, Protestantism had created space for entrepreneurial individuals to redirect and redefine Christianity. It was a dangerous idea, yet it was an understanding of the essence of the Christian faith that possessed an unprecedented capacity to adapt to local circumstances. From the outset, Protestantism was a religion designed for global adaptation and transplantation.
This book sets out to tell the story of the origins and development of this radical form of Christianity, not to record the past but to understand the present and anticipate the future. It is a subject of immense historical, intellectual, and social importance. The English Civil War of the seventeenth century was ultimately a battle for the soul of Protestantism, as rival visions of what it meant to be Protestant collided, with disastrous results. Yet not only has Protestantism survived the first five hundred years of its existence, but it seems poised for further growth and adaptation in the twenty-first century. As religion once again comes to play a significant role in world affairs, an understanding of the complexities of this great religious power becomes progressively more important.
Although this book makes use of the best historical scholarship, it is not yet another chronicle of the development of Protestantism. Rather, it is an interpretative history of the movement that sets out to clarify the identity and inner dynamics of Protestantism through its historical manifestations. Whereas many older studies thought of Protestantism as being analogous to a seed, capable of development and growth along predetermined lines, the evidence presented in this analysis suggests that this model is inadequate and misleading. To use an alternative biological imagery, Protestantism turns out to be more like a micro-organism: capable of rapid mutation and adaptation in response to changing environments, while still maintaining continuity with its earlier forms. This insight gives a new importance to critical historical analysis: what does the historical development and transformation of the movement tell us about its genetic makeup — and hence its possible future forms?
This study is written at a highly significant time in the history of Protestantism. Throughout its existence, the United States of America has been a predominantly Protestant nation. Many of the developments that have shaped the modern religious world can be traced back to American influence. Yet a series of recent studies have suggested that the era of the Protestant majority in the United States is coming to an end, possibly within the next few years.4 With such a seismic development now imminent, the time is clearly right to explore the past, present, and future of this movement and to ask where its epicenters will lie in the twenty-first century and what forms it will take.
Opening of the book:
THE DANGEROUS IDEA
To its supporters, the Protestant Reformation represented a necessary correction and long-overdue renewal of the Christian faith, liberating it from its imprisonment to the transient medieval intellectual and social order and preparing it for new challenges as western Europe emerged from the feudalism of the Middle Ages. Christianity was being born all over again, with a new potency and capacity to engage with an emerging new world order.
Yet from its outset, the movement was seen by its opponents as a menacing development, opening the way to religious mayhem, social disintegration, and political chaos. It was not simply that Protestantism seemed to revise, corrupt, or abandon some of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Christian faith. Something far more significant — and ultimately much more dangerous — lay beneath the surface of the Protestant criticisms of the medieval church. At its heart, the emergence and growth of Protestantism concerned one of the most fundamental questions that can confront any religion: Who has the authority to define its faith? Institutions or individuals? Who has the right to interpret its foundational document, the Bible? 3
Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to “official” interpretations handed down by popes or other centralized religious authorities. For Martin Luther, perhaps the most significant of the first generation of Protestant leaders, the traditional authority of clerical institutions had led to the degradation and distortion of the Christian faith. Renewal and reformation were urgently needed. And if the medieval church would not put its own house in order, reform would have to come from its grass roots — from the laity. Luther’s radical doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” empowered individual believers. It was a radical, dangerous idea that bypassed the idea that a centralized authority had the right to interpret the Bible. There was no centralized authority, no clerical monopoly on biblical interpretation. A radical reshaping of Christianity was inevitable, precisely because the restraints on change had suddenly — seemingly irreversibly — been removed.
The outbreak of the Peasants’ War in 1525 brought home to Luther that this new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If every individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical religious individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. But who, his critics asked, had “authorized” these so-called authorities? Was not the essence of Luther’s dangerous new idea that there was no such centralized authority? That all Christians had the right to interpret the Bible as they saw fit?
In the end, not even the personal authority of Luther could redirect this religious revolution, which anxious governments sought to tame and domesticate. By its very nature, Protestantism had created space for entrepreneurial individuals to redirect and redefine Christianity. It was a dangerous idea, yet it was an understanding of the essence of the Christian faith that possessed an unprecedented capacity to adapt to local circumstances. From the outset, Protestantism was a religion designed for global adaptation and transplantation.
This book sets out to tell the story of the origins and development of this radical form of Christianity, not to record the past but to understand the present and anticipate the future. It is a subject of immense historical, intellectual, and social importance. The English Civil War of the seventeenth century was ultimately a battle for the soul of Protestantism, as rival visions of what it meant to be Protestant collided, with disastrous results. Yet not only has Protestantism survived the first five hundred years of its existence, but it seems poised for further growth and adaptation in the twenty-first century. As religion once again comes to play a significant role in world affairs, an understanding of the complexities of this great religious power becomes progressively more important.
Although this book makes use of the best historical scholarship, it is not yet another chronicle of the development of Protestantism. Rather, it is an interpretative history of the movement that sets out to clarify the identity and inner dynamics of Protestantism through its historical manifestations. Whereas many older studies thought of Protestantism as being analogous to a seed, capable of development and growth along predetermined lines, the evidence presented in this analysis suggests that this model is inadequate and misleading. To use an alternative biological imagery, Protestantism turns out to be more like a micro-organism: capable of rapid mutation and adaptation in response to changing environments, while still maintaining continuity with its earlier forms. This insight gives a new importance to critical historical analysis: what does the historical development and transformation of the movement tell us about its genetic makeup — and hence its possible future forms?
This study is written at a highly significant time in the history of Protestantism. Throughout its existence, the United States of America has been a predominantly Protestant nation. Many of the developments that have shaped the modern religious world can be traced back to American influence. Yet a series of recent studies have suggested that the era of the Protestant majority in the United States is coming to an end, possibly within the next few years.4 With such a seismic development now imminent, the time is clearly right to explore the past, present, and future of this movement and to ask where its epicenters will lie in the twenty-first century and what forms it will take.
Last edited:
Earburner
Well-Known Member
"No one single church has all of the truth, but all of the churches have some of the truth."- Earburner
I purchased a copy of the book a couple of months ago on Willie's recommendation and just recently I purchased another copy to give to a friend when I see him in a few weeks time.
It is a book that is well worth reading. I also know that it is available in the US as well.
Shalom
I don't really like it either. That's why I have converted most of my computer books to MS Word (docx). That way, I can print them out if I want to. PDF's are a real pain to try and read anyway.
With my sciatic nerve [left side] acting up I have to sit these days more than anything else so it just means a bit longer on the computer. But... yes, I do prefer reading a hard copy when I have a choice.
Similar threads
