Was The Reformation Sent By God?

Boy that was a mouthful but I disagree with Christ and the sinner in tandem... No this is the Gospel in a nutshell!

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God

Now there may be differences of opinion and error on here but that being said, who on here has said Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh?... That is why I believe the umbrella of God's redeeming everlasting love covers more than any of us can ever imagine... Brother Glen

 

Everything comes from God. The Reformation I believe was more of a worldly power struggle that ended up using logic to win control. But the Christian spirit was certainly missing resulting in much bloodshed from both sides. I use the truth unearthed through the logic of the Reformers but always temper it with love.

 

My opinion.

Yes it was divinely inspired but somewhat indirectly.

I believe God was influencing matters behind the scenes in 1440 when Johann Gutenberg brought in the advocation of the moveable metal type printing press upon which was the first printed bible procreated.

Following Gutenberg's venture a revolution of printing was brought in and IMO it was the true starting date of the Industrial Revolution.

I don't think it was a coincidence that the Reformation had its beginning about 70 years after the introduction of the Gutenberg Press and bibles became MUCH more affordable.

Seventy years was enough time for the printed bible to spread out into the literate world and later to evoke a motivation for literacy of the common folk.

However I don't think the Reformation went far enough, it faultered and splintered into many branches.

 

Can any of you please explain why God would choose to splinter Christendom into innumerable sects/denominations that have spent the last 500 years eroding the Christian unity that He promised to pray for?
John 17:20–21 (ASV): Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

 

You know what, you believe it your way and I will believe it mine... Not one of us is going to convince the other, and I didn't come on here to convince anyone only the way I see it and understand it... Now there will be some who may see it and understand like you do and others may see and understand it like I do, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it... Jesus Christ said he came down from Heaven to save ALL the Father gave him and lose none... Now do you and I know without a doubt ALL the Father gave him?... No one but the Triune Godhead knows that unless you know something they don't?... That is why I will continually say on this board the umbrella of God's redeeming everlasting love covers more than any of us can ever imagine... Brother Glen

 

You nailed it, Brother Glen!!!

 

Well said.

 

This is my opinionated answer and it is somewhat controversial/debatable:

This phenomena of the branching of
Christendom" is covered by Jesus in Matthew 13 - the mysteries of the kingdom

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Read the whole chapter

Specifically:

Matthew 13
31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Jesus also said that the kingdom on earth would be a mixed multitude in the parable and explanation of the wheat and the tares.

Presumably the mustard seed tree parable is a focused historical summarized view of the mixed multitude of "Christendom" the various branches sprouting out of Christianity so-called with the birds being the forces of evil.

Of HIS Church Jesus said:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The last phrase showing that although the gates of hell shall not prevail against the kingdom, they will certainly try or else why did Jesus give the warning.

Why did He allow this?

For His glory of course.

Matthew 13
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

The Son Of God shed his blood for us on a cross which btw not a one person on here deserved... Knowing that I say it's time we end the atrocities and the bloodshed shed on both sides... And this we will do if we look only to the blood shed by risen, glorious, Son Of God, Jesus The Christ and not to the blood shed by men who say we are sent from God?... Really?... That's logical isn't it?... Brother Glen

 

The church of Matthew 16 is the church of Jerusalem that came into being at the preaching of Peter during which time the Holy Ghost manifested Himself through signs and wonders and established the Church of Jerusalem.

The church spread via the apostles bringing the gospel to the world.

The church at Rome at one time was an apostolic church but over the centuries corrupted itself even to the mass murder of believers.

In my opinion the dogma of the "pope" being the Vicar of Christ on the earth is error.
Yes he is the leader of the largest sector of Christianity on earth but he (IMO again) is not the apostolic successor of the apostle Peter .

 

Was the written gospel crucified on a cross?... I believe everyone on here will think is a ludacris, ridiculous, statement... But the living Gospel sure was and is the foundation the written one is based on... I have two Deaf children and one of the saying among the Deaf when they think no one understand what they are saying is... Talk To The Hand!... So Brother what I'm also saying is... Brother Glen

 

I think you'll find that we do. Have a read of the Bible.

 

I will re-post a small portion of the conversion story of an ex-OPC pastor and see if you would give me your thoughts:

'Another subject for study in engaging Catholicism was the Church Fathers. Catholics regularly make the claim that these leaders of the early Church are Catholic. I had a renewed interest to test this claim. My sense was that it would be easily disproved. After all, the reformers themselves had been avid students of the Fathers, quoting them in their theological works with ease and without contradiction over against Catholic teaching, right?

Going into this I had to admit that my familiarity with the actual works of the Fathers was limited. Thumbing curiously through a random volume from Schaff’s Patristics collection or culling a quote from Ignatius or Augustine or reading a history of early doctrine text for seminary coursework exhausted my contact with these ancient Christian authors. I had known for a long time that the Church Fathers did not share my Reformed theological vocabulary. But such was to be expected, I guessed. The Protestant Reformation with its precise theological formulations was many centuries away when these men wrote. So what (my thinking went) if Irenaeus or Justin or Augustine didn’t sound exactly like our Reformed creeds and catechisms? Yet now in examining their writings I began to sense that indeed there was something more profound at work than a mere difference in expression or emphasis. Was the Catholic claim right? Continued reading suggested that the actual theological substance of the Fathers was different. Certainly the Fathers didn’t seem at odds with the positive elements of the Reformation. But I noticed in my reading that they thought differently than did the reformers. Their approach to the Christian faith took another route. They seemed to cut an early theological path that when traced did not exactly connect to the one blazed by the reformers in the 16th century. I began to consider whether a person would naturally pick up the distinctive trail of the Protestant Reformation if one started with the writings of the early Church? The answer increasingly seemed to be no.

I knew the reformers had explicitly rejected much of what I was finding in the Church Fathers.

Page after page revealed a common faith during that early period in which bishops succeeded Apostles, baptismal waters regenerated, bread and wine transformed, penance was necessary and salutary, purgatorial fire cleansed, the Blessed Virgin was an active Mother to the faithful, departed saints prayed, Peter held the Keys, and the Eucharist was a sacrifice for the living and the dead. There appeared in their minds no awareness of or concern for the cardinal doctrines of the Reformation so painstakingly spelled out as essential to the gospel. Actually…the Fathers sounded Catholic.

This was unexpectedly unsettling for me because no external argument(s) in favor of a Catholic reading of the Fathers had been made in conjunction with my reading of them. The writings themselves served to give voice to the arguments. The words on the page became the witness or opponent (depending on one’s perspective). I began to ponder whether a person would naturally pick up the trail of the Catholic Church if one started with the writings of the early Church? The answer increasingly seemed to be yes.

At this point someone could object that the Church Fathers were not Catholic. My question would be, what then were they? Most certainly they did not share the peculiar faith of the Protestant Reformation. While it is possible to place a non-Catholic interpretation upon carefully selected sentences and paragraphs from the Fathers, a sustained reading makes such an interpretation impossible to maintain. In reading them one discovers that they appear to be natives of the Catholic Church. Wrenching them out of their natural Catholic context is detrimental to both the power of their witness and the proper understanding of the inquiring reader.

My suggestion here is to take up and read the Church Fathers. Read them in context. Read all of them. Allow them to define their terms. Take them at their word. Yes, this is a time investment. And it requires an open mind. But if you devote yourself to reading them, your perspective on the early Church will be forever changed and enriched. At the very least I’m hopeful you’ll come to acknowledge that these churchmen were Catholic. Better yet, you may become convinced that these Fathers are authentic witnesses to apostolic Christianity'.

 

Walter, the history of the Catholic Church from about the year AD800 and beyond is shocking in terms of torture, atrocities, mass murder and modernly unspeakable crimes against humanity.

Jesus words:

Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

Hank, by no means am I going to try to excuse past wrongs done in the name of Christ.. You need to remember that heresy was considered a particularly grave sin. Not only was the heretics soul in jeopardy but also his false teaching jeopardized the souls of many others. The Church, as the guardian of souls. had to root out heresy. I don't excuse the torture, hanging, burning, etc of anyone whether they were Catholic or Protestant. Atrocities were committed by both. Kings and Queens also, saw themselves as guardians of the faith (Henry the VIII & 'Bloody Mary' for example) and dealt with heretics in horrible ways. As you know, if an accused heretic refused to recant/repent then he would be turned over to the state. According to civil law, too often the death penalty was imposed. The Church itself could not impose the death penalty and in many cases pleaded for the lives of the accused. Remember, capitol punishment was a common civil punishment even for simple theft or counterfeiting.