The Reformation

Bro. Glen noted:

Bro. Glen

Have you been up late figuring out ways to confuse me?

OK, here is my take.

THe Reformation was a result of individuals within the Catholic church who decided that it was corrupt and needed reforming. In the process of reforming the Catholic church they (Luther, Calvin, et.al.) came to the conclusion that the Roman church was so corrupt that it was impossible to salvage, so they, with the help of the Pope excommunicating them, set out on their own. In their view, in order to know what was needful of reform, Biblical study and scholarship was required. In my mind, that is the great contribution of the Reformation -- a tradition of scholarship and study. With the scholarship and study the doctrinal points followed.

Course there are other valid intrepetations of that period of history.

As for the Great-Awakening -- it was a more dangerous time theologically. [(Evidence is in the other thread various schismatic groups which resulted from that period). Stephen (Rsr)/Robert/Jim/Doc Yoakum jump in here if you think I am wrong on this issue.] But I am not sure the Great-Awakening was on par with the Reformation. I am probably predjuiced on this issue and probably should shut up.

Bro. Glen am I clear as mud? Seems to be a muddy mind day at my house.

Jeff.

 

rsr

No, don't think you missed the mark anywhere there. Certainly wish I had had the presence of mind to write such an eloquent passage. (I write Civil War stuff and edit for a couple of presses, so when I come here, I just get sloppy with syntax and grammar.)

Back to the subject at hand.

I for some reason or another had focused on Calvin more than Luther when I did my little bit above. But you are absolutely right about Luther and the reasons for his objections to Papal authority. And equally correct in the assessment of the reactions of the myriad of German princes. (For those who might happen this way and don't know, Germany was at the time of the Reformation a wierd nation state. There were a considerable number of kingdoms, duchies, baronies, etc. each with a royal family of considerable power, united under a relatively weak monarch -- the Holy Roman Emperor.) The Holy Roman state was very fragile, and the ruling elite had little to gain and a lot to lose by supporting Rome on this one. It has been many moons since I studied this period in European history. It would be nice to have time and energy to revist some of that political history to make an evaluation of the impact of those forces on the Reformation.

Jeff,

 

The Reformation and the Great Awakening are both similar in that theological renewal and practical piety were needed within the Church. Theologically both stressed the "solas" of the Reformation and the "doctrines of grace".

Differences? Many more social changes were taking place in Europe than in the Americas.

 

Rsr

That idea has my vote.

I tried to send you a PM re Civil War, but says your box is full.

Jeff,

 

The settings for these two theological movements was very different, and their outcoms also quite different. When we look at the Reformation, we see something that had been building in the church for some time, and probably the biggest reasons that it happened when it did was because of the invention of the printing press and the "return to the sources." In the Great Awakenings, especially the second, we have religious ferver arising out of a new situation in America--the frontier. While the great awakenings brought about a great deal of change, in fact most Baptist spirituality arose out of this time rather than 1600s, this change was more with form than theology, as done in an academic setting. I would say that in the great awakenings American individualism caused the Christian message to be applied individually and also placed theology in the hands of the individual-->how else could we have something like this Baptistboard?

 

DD noted:

No agrument on that one.

Danny, you may be right, but I think, in honesty, that is debatable. Printing while an valuable advance, the price of books was probably prohibitive to the masses, even if they could read. I tend to think the leaders of the reformation would have revolted, printing press or no.

Danny I partly agree and partial don't on this one. I would agree with the spirituality part, but disagree on the theology part. I believe the awakenings revolutionized the Baptist thought of the time. Up to that point there had been basically General and Particular. After that time, there were hyper-Calvinistic Baptists to hyper-Arminian types, and a completely new group arose out of this -- hyper-dispensationalists. I don't think with out the fervor, and intense interest in spirituality of the Great Awakening (Part Deux) that we would have more than 4-5 factions of Baptists today. (Course speculation is just that speculation). In addition to the schismatic course the Great Awakening set the Baptists on, it did the same to lesser degrees for other groups as well, notably the Presbyterians. The course of events that the Second Great Awakening set into motion eventually led (directly or indirectly) to probably more than 500 separate groups in the U.S.) If you will indulge an example.... I don't think without the Great Awakening you have the popularity of someone like Alexander Campbell. So, I think you would have to count the original Campbellites, plus any group which is deriviative of that (Campbell's) original theology, as well as their political schisms until the present time.

DId that make any sense to anyone but me?

See comment above.

Danny, I understand your particular historical focus is on historical theology, so you have me at a disadvantage -- I did my Ph.D. in military history. You have an additional advantage of youth, and a non-atrophied brain, so take it easy on me.

 

When it comes to religious movements, always keep an eye to the German theologians. So much of what has happened in the modern church came out of Germany.

At the time of the first Great Awakening, there was the Pietist Movement in Germany.....then in England there was the Methodist revivals....this is what spread to the USA. Religion was not all that important, much like to-day. People went to church, owned pews and virtually socialized. The devout religious leaders saw a need for personal piety among these church attenders,,,and hence we have the earnest and tough preaching......Sinners in the hands of an Angry God....oh what we could do with this type of preaching to-day to wake up the people presently occupying the comfortable pews.

At the time, 1734-1744 (roughly)there was a very large number of unchurched people. "Religion" may have played an prominent part in the establishment of America, but it was not a personal, intimate relationship with a living God....there was much more humanism. This is what had to be alerted and raised from the dead.

The Reformation was essentially a doctrinal move and it centered around indulgences, leading to Luther's great stand on the "just shall live by their faith". He never desired to leave the RC, but when he was left no choice, he preached alone. Doctrines followed; some good; some not so good.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim

Good and thoughtful comments as usual.

A couple of things. You noted:

I don;t know if we have discussed this with you or not, but we PB's are sometimes termed Children of a Happy God (beyond the universalist faction). The reason being that we typically preach a positive sermon about what God has done for his people. That all being said. I am not so much sure that we need tough or tougher preaching. I would think, however, that we need a more balanced approach to preaching. Sometimes a sermon on repentance (the Angry God approach); sometimes a sermon on what God has done for us (The Happy God approach). Sometimes sermons on what we ought to be doing for one another. We need sermons on the life of Christ, purpose and establishment of the Church, etc. etc.

At any rate... It seems to me that most of our churches have gotten into a rut (I include Primitive Baptists in this). I really don't know if the Baptist Board is any indication or not, but some folks here (and I would assume in their respective churches) have fetishes for certain topics. Some examples -- It seems to me that homosexuality has received excessive air time here. (BTW, good call on closing that other topic). Others seem to live to argue about Calvinism/Arminian doctrine. Still others are obsessed about end times. I am not saying that those things don't have a place, but they don't have a place to the exclusion of all else.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue -- balance. And anyone else who happens by who might care to comment.

Regards to all
Jeff.

P.S. I about forgot to relate this to the Reformation/Great Awakening. I preceive but have no firm proof that this preaching "out of balance" began during the great-awakening. Thougts on that notion would also be welcome.

J

 

If I may, growing up in England and Wales, and in the evangelical Anglican Church, I witnessed some great preachers. The difference between American and English Churches being the importance of words and emotion.

When I first came to America (including Canada to some degree) I was faced with screaming,pulpit pounding preachers, full of dramatics. This was very strange to me and I got very little substance from the sermons. If I sat on edge, it had more to do with volume than substance. In England, we sat on edge because the message witnessed to our spirit and we felt the touch of conviction and convincing in the words.

There are always exceptions, and I know there are many fine preachers in America; just diferent to what I am accustomed.

Balance in preaching is so important. We cannot flog a horse day in and day out and expect it to perform steadily. It will get jumpy and spirited and eventually destroy the carriage, the plough or the ploughman.

In the early days there were the silver-tongued speakers, the orators, but then there were the preachers. Both using words responsibly, but the first showing his eloquence; the latter showing his Saviour. This is what we need to-day. Too often we present this gentle Jesus meek and mild and forget that He trod the path to Golgotha. We forget that He travelled where we cannot go.

Sometimes we step into modernity and we forget the simple message we have to preach. We use the words of seminary, and forget the child in the front pew. We need to choose our words, but not ignore the language. We need to be colourful, but not always loud and animated. We just need to become preachers again with a message, and that message must always include the Lord Jesus Christ.

Cheers,

Jim

 

SO far you guys have given me somethings to chew on.

Jim, thanks for clarifying. I think I must have misunderstood some of the point you were trying to make earlier. No nits to pick with the last post.

Stephen, as for the printing press. I do agree that the printing press had a lot to do with the spread of the Reformers ideals. I had my mind fixed on the other end of the Reformation. I can get a little dense from time to time. Thanks for putting the brain into gear.

Rsr noted:

As for churches adopting a practice and developing theology to support it. I suppose all churches are guilty of this to some degree or another. But the point is well taken. Personal tragedy is also a factor in developing some theology. (Universalism is one that this applies to more than any other I have real knowledge of, but would suspect that some of the health/wealth folks might fall in the same boat). At any rate, we have groups which developed around a single point of doctrine, or very limited group of doctrines or practices. I suspect that in the beginnings of Pentacostalism there would have been little to distinguish them from their antecedents, but those folks have focused on that "baptism of the Holy Spirit." and gone from there. Somewhere amongst my clutter I have a couple of histories of the Pentacostal movement, and that was one of the things that struck me about them. One of these histories was internal, the other was an external history. Some baptist/baptistic groups have not been immune to this either.

Rsr, as for credentials, I have advance history degrees, but the focus was not religion, so I am just as much in the dark as anyone else on most of this stuff. I always welcome your comments.

I can stand being yelled at either.

Jeff.
In snowy Saltville.

 

Stephen

I think I understand now. Boy I am slow of late.

I will agree about the proof-texting. I think, however, that alot of history proof-texting is done by non-professional historians. I will be a little bit arrogant (I actually would rather not, but don't know how else to say it). -- It seems that many folks who would never presume to be an engineer or medical doctor think that because they can read a history book that they are a historian. There are a myriad of course one must take at the B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. levels of historical education that deal with the very thing you note, so the point is understood and agreed with. The same is true of theology and theologans. Everyone wants to be one. That is probably more problematic with Baptists and groups deriviative from Baptists because of the priesthood of the believer doctrine. At any rate, thanks for clarifying. I'll probably need to clarify this post as well, so if it isn't clear, just ask. The Diabetes is running out of control for the last few days and it causes me some mental confusion.

Jeff.