Featured On Reformation Day

I don’t mean in terms of Rome’s hierarchical ecclesiology and Presbyterian ecclesiology. In hindsight, “pervasive evil” may be overstatement, but I am not certain. Actually my comment took a statement referred to by the OP, I but applied it to the Reformation in that it did not rid itself of certain influences that I believe to be distinctly Catholic in origin (insofar as the Church is concerned). Luther, I think, initially hinted of a church composed of believers but instead focused on a territorial church.

Luther could not depart from a territorial church model and the secular authority as an arm of the Church. His comments about Anabaptists indicate that one condemnation was that they separated from the Church, yet their worship in secret is certainly understandable. Another, of course, was believer’s baptism. I think that Luther’s opponents in the Second Front were correct in that the church is an assembly of believers rather than the State-Church model. I would also include paedobaptism, but I think that the practice is somewhat necessary for a State-Church as infants are not only baptized into the Church but also - in a way - into their citizenship.

Although I do believe that the Reformation stopped short of what the Church should be, I also see it a necessary step in God’s design. Without the blend of secular government and Church I do not know that the Reformation would have been successful or would have paved the way for a Second Front. But the doctrine of a territorial Church, “Christendom,” is IMHO an evil that was transferred to the Reformers from the Constantine mentality.

I will also be careful to state that we cannot judge the Reformers and their flaws based on hindsight. Luther made great strides in the Reformation and illuminated a much darkened world. He was a product of his time and in some ways bound by those presuppositions and interpretations of his day. While I, having been Baptist all of my Christian life, would immediately reject the State-Church model and paedobaptism as unbiblical, this proved an understandable struggle for some of the Reformers.

 

I think, if we stand back and look at the Church as a whole and the spread of Christianity, that God’s hand and providence can been seen not only in the Reformation but also earlier in the Catholic Church. In a way, the Catholic Church served as vehicle for Christianity and the literature/debates of the fourth and fifth centuries that became an expression of the consensus fidelium were not without value. I wouldn’t deny the error of Constantine’s Christendom, but at the same time I can see this as a moving force for the faith (just as the wrongful persecutions of the early Church served to solidify and unify the early Christians). While there were always movements against the RCC, I do not think it appropriate to ignore the strides made during the Church’s time of “captivity” in the RCC. The notion that the Catholic Church had departed from faithful service was not restricted to the Reformers but was also recognized by the RCC itself (unfortunately, the Catholic reforms did not deliver the RCC from error). I guess my point is that all things work for the good to those who love God. The early church persecutions, the RCC and the Reformation served a purpose in God’s design, even though all proved counter to the NT Church model and were instrumental in the deaths of many believers.

I think Yeats is right - “things fall apart, the center cannot hold” - if that center ceases to be Christ. This is the problem, IMHO, that the Reformers faced. Just as the center of the RCC became the RCC, the center (at least in practice) for the Reformers became the Reformed Church itself and they became persecutors almost out of the gate of the Reformation. This in no way, however, diminishes their contribution. As a Baptist, I know that I owe a lot to the Reformers. I also owe a lot to the Radical Reformers and those influences that stood as “heretics” against the RCC and the Magisterial Reformers. But truth be told, I owe everything to God and He was not absent or inattentive during this period in our history.

 

I doubt anyone here would not appreciate Luther’s contribution, but I don’t know that it is fair to say that men lacked the nerve of Luther up to that point. As you point out, posting the thesis did not carry the intent that the spark ignited. Also, men like Jan Hus certainly did not lack nerve.

 

Luther seems to have adhered to veneration of the saints (specifying that this is only with the worship of dulia - veneration). Melanchthon indicated honoring the saints as a means of giving glory to God.


Calvin made note of Luther’s “worship of dulia” and took exception to the practice. To Calvin, saints are to be honorable spoken of and felt, but in no way honored as in veneration or worship - e.g., “no man can assert that the ears of the saints are so long that our prayers can reach them”; “because the Lutherans reply, that in this way the glory of God is transferred to the saints, always keep in mind the distraction of the School, that we worship them only with the worship of dulia.” Calvin – “no other veneration of the saints is recommended to us in Scripture, but that which is universally due to believers…Of the saints, therefore, in proportion as each of them excels in divine gifts, or has been placed by the Lord in a higher rank, we must both feel and speak honorably. But to render worship to them, as the generality were wont to do, is profane superstition” (see Calvin, “Articles agreed upon by the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris, with the Antidote”).


So my understanding is that Luther would not object to veneration of the saints while Calvin would hold this too close to worship and idolatry. I think that the same ideology can be ascribed to Calvin’s rejection of relics and physical symbols of the faith.

 

And it’s still bugging the heck out of me - has anyone here heard the term “of Jesus and the Marines,” and if so, what is it supposed to mean?

 

I have no idea. Another poster said that I was “of Jesus and the Marines.” Although I’m sure it was derogatory (by context of the conversation), it didn’t make sense to me.

 

Obtuse is a kinder word than I was thinking…..perhaps I should adopt it as it'd be the more brotherly thing to do. :smilewinkgrin:

 

This is true - and it was wrong of me. I was responding from the interpretation that you presented of Romans 13 and the authority that Luther held in your Faith - but you are right. I do not know you and our comments here on the BB are not necessarily reflections of our lives. I took it that your general regard for Scripture was reflected in this interpretation of Romans 13. For that, I do apologize.

Luke, I’m not saying you are foolish…but this is a very foolish statement. You don't know me. You don't know what I have endured for the sake of the Word of God, or for my country for that matter. This is a REAL jackass thing to say, Luke. I mean, just about as bad as I have ever heard on baptistboard.

From your comments, I take it you were a marine…or at least served you country in some military branch. (If this is true of you - and I could think of no better way of expressing your gratitude than serving - then I do sincerely offer my thanks for your service).

But as I’ve said - this conversation will not go anywhere because I reject the notion that I have been commanded by God to pay tribute to Luther as an authority of my faith. You can skirt the issues, but this is the bolder that stands in our way. Neither of us will budge so there is no need in keeping it up.

 

Oops...too late to edit. Change Bolder to Boulder in last post. Typing surpassed thinking. :BangHead:.

 

First off, I do apologize if my explanation was not clear. I do not know any other way to put it, so I’ll simply try again.

I honor Luther in terms of respecting his work and contributions to our faith. I feel the same about men like Jan Hus and Wycliffe. It is in this way that I believe that we honor those who served our nation. I do not view these people as an authority of how I should live. Likewise, I do not accept Luther as an authority of my faith. He did not discover, but rediscovered and reemphasized what was already there. This is where we disagree. I know that you observe Reformation Day as Luther is “an authority” of your faith. I am sure that you will be observing Radical Reformation Day in January as they contributed as much to your beliefs. I’m sure that you pay tribute to Hus and Wycliffe. I am not condemning you for observing these days, but I am saying that you have departed from Scripture by trying to condemn others for not observing these days. I prefer to acknowledge and think of the reformation as a whole, and in that honor the work of God wrought throughout that timeperiod (to include the pre-Reformation and the Second Front) because I believe it forms a greater perspective on the works which contributed to the formation of Baptist doctrine. But I do not place any of these men, used of God, as an authority of faith. Perhaps it is time to be less juvinile and more Christlike, Luke.