Nostr Web Client

So then why did the reformers schism from the Catholic Church? I’ve looked into Martin Luther and his issues with Catholic practices of his day which largely were corrected by the Catholic Church in the council of Trent I believe.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago 💬 3

Not quite...it was the Council of Trent that forever separated Rome from an Augustinian understanding of faith, justification, etc. It was and remains, effectively, 'another gospel' (see Paul's Epistle to the Galatians).

Also, Luther was excommunicated. He didn't want to start something new, he didn't want schism, he wanted to reform the church from within. He called out their aberrations and they threw him out. Hus did similarly before Luther. He appealed to Scripture, they appealed to their power. There were many in that day who knew that "Rome was an open sewer" of corruption, debauchery, and spiritual oppression. In Trent, Rome effectively anathematized the true gospel, so the Christians that disagreed with them--preferring Scripture--well, they just continued meeting as the church.

Let's perhaps put this in terms we prefer: Rome was closed-source (only the clergy had access to the Scriptures, and it was in Latin) and it was centralized (agree with our interpretations or you're damned for eternity). They made up new rules by fiat--and if you disagree, you're burned at the stake. By getting the Word of God into the language of the common people, it was 'open-sourced' and decentralized. It was not a revolution: it was a _reformation_ -- a return to first principles.

I happen to think that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' chose Reformation Day to publish his white paper as a throwback to the 95 theses. What 'SN' started was a _monetary_ reformation -- a return to first principles. But that's just me.

Not sure how interested you are in this topic, but the Joseph Fiennes' version of the movie Luther relies pretty heavily on actual words written or spoken by Luther and those with whom he disagreed. It's not a super high-quality production (apart from the great Sir Peter Ustinov), but the film does an actually decent job of addressing what some of the issues were. I watch it almost yearly on Reformation Day. Check it out. If you're the reading type, you might pick up the little book by Darryl Hart called _Still Protesting_ which surveys what's happened since the Reformation, and why we're still divided on the same key points:

- Sola Scriptura (the authority of Scripture _alone_ - not Popes)

- Sola Gratia (salvation is by grace _alone_ )

- Sola Fide (justification by faith _alone_ - not mixed with our works)

- Solus Christus (by the work of Christ _alone_ - we contribute nothing as to the ground of our justification)

- Soli Deo Gloria (therefore God _alone_ gets the glory for salvation)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago

...I appreciate your questions, either way. 🤙🏻

Ryan Salayer 5mo ago 💬 1

I used to be big on sola scriptura but the church that Jesus established would have had to rely on tradition and John says in his gospel that there aren’t enough pages to write down all the things Jesus said and did.

Even as a Protestant I believed that the Holy Spirit can and does guide people to do and believe what is right in Gods eyes, so why would the Holy Spirit not be doing that for “the bishop of Rome” or any other bishop or priest for that matter. This is not to say that becoming a priest magically makes you righteous but devoting your life to our Lord in actions and in prayer would likely increase your righteousness. We also can see throughout history signs and wonders that have been performed through priests and bishops in accordance with holy scripture.

In Acts 2:42 it says “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

‭‭Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭42‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

This passage sets a scriptural precedent for holy tradition. In fact the canonical scripture wouldn’t have even existed at this point in church history and it was the Roman Catholic Church that came together to canonize the scripture.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago

The question of _sola scriptura_ isn't one of private interpretation, but focuses on the question of _authority_. What happens when so-called 'tradition' adds to, or even contradicts, Scripture? "God alone is Lord of the conscience." The Reformers were zealous to say that Scripture carries the authority of its Author: the authority of Scripture is passively _recognized_ by the church, it is not actively _bestowed_ by The Church. All that is necessary for life and godliness has been set down in Scripture and it is made effective by the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. Rome would say something like 'prima Scriptura' - Scripture is the primary, but not the 'alone' authority. It is 'primarly Scripture' but mediated and properly interpreted only by the Magisterium--"oh, and you can't see the Files for yourselves. Trust us, bro." Luther was Snowden, Luther was Assange, releasing the files for all to see, read, study, and understand. The doctrine of sola scriptura is: don't trust [human leaders], verify [by going straight to the source] -- like the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

Ryan Salayer 5mo ago 💬 1

Pelagianism was officially condemned in 418 at the council of Carthage and is considered a heresy by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago 💬 1

Yes, it was. And yet, in the sixteenth century, Rome [re-embraced semi-Pelagianism](https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/the-pelagian-captivity-of-the-church). And the Reformers rightly protested.

> Ironically, the Church condemned semi-Pelagianism as vehemently as it had condemned original Pelagianism. Yet by the time you get to the sixteenth century and you read the [Roman] Catholic understanding of what happens in salvation the [Roman] Church basically repudiated what Augustine taught and Aquinas taught as well. The [Roman] Church concluded that there still remains this freedom that is intact in the human will and that man must cooperate with-and assent to-the prevenient grace that is offered to them by God. If we exercise that will, if we exercise a cooperation with whatever powers we have left, we will be saved. And so in the sixteenth century the [Roman] Church reembraced semi-Pelagianism.

-- R. C. Sproul, "[The Pelagian Captivity of the Church](https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/the-pelagian-captivity-of-the-church)"

Ryan Salayer 5mo ago 💬 1

So do you personally hold to the TULIP principles of Calvinism?

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago 💬 2

Absolutely--but the only real question there is whether one holds to the "T" - the rest falls out by necessary consequence (though, more importantly, each letter in that acronym is the clear teaching of Scripture as well). The "T" is simply that man by his rebellion was cursed (Gen. 3) and became totally lost, and totally unable, and totally unwilling, to save himself - he became spiritually "blind" (John 2), an "enemy" of God (Rom. 5), a "child of wrath by nature" (Eph. 2). Having sword allegiance to the Serpent instead of his Creator, he chose friendship with the Serpent and enmity with God. This is our state before the Spirit of God (monergistically) grants us new life. Like Lazarus in the tomb, we cannot even "see" the kingdom, let alone enter it, because we have been justly cursed. It takes a divine miracle--regeneration--to open our eyes, change our hearts, to see the truth (John 2).

But there's more to "Calvinism" than the "five points": "[How Many Points?](https://the-highway.com/how-many-points_Muller.html)" The "five points" were not "a thing" until the 17th-century Synod of Dordt (~50 years after Calvin's death), when they were formulated in opposition to the Arminian Remonstrants. And it was little more than a reaffirmation of that Paulean-Augustinian stream that leads to salvation being by grace alone, by faith alone, in the work of Christ alone, according the authority of scrpture alone, and to the glory of God alone.

(I sincerely appreciate this back-and-forth. These are important matters--literally matters of eternal life and death--and thus are far more worth talking through than most other things.)

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago 💬 1

```s/sword/sworn/```

Also: the question of the 'T' revolves around this: did we actually 'die the death'? (Can you hear the Serpent's hiss?) What is true 'life'? The 'T' says, "Yes: we died (Eph.2), and we must be born again (John 2)."

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago

R. C. Sproul talks about the "T": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvUpyxnqAow

Ryan Salayer 5mo ago 💬 1

So would you agree that babies are born with the curse of original sin but without the stain of committing sins themselves?

I was reformed and bordered on Calvinist but found that when I fully listened and understood Catholic dogma what I believed was probably 1 degree different with the exception of a couple specific ideas such as free will vs predestination.

I also appreciate this back and forth and your educated approach with a great deal of respect. Whether we agree or not it is clear we are brothers in Christ

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago 💬 2

Yes to the first part (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5), but to the second part...not exactly, as it's not really relevant. The problem is our very nature has been "made opposite unto all that is spiritually good," such that "actual sins" of individuals will inevitably be the fruit of that corrupted root. Here's how we put it:

```

WLC

Q. 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?

A. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.

...

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?

A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.

```

Regarding the question of free will and predestination, I wonder if this might help. My favorite analogy to explain this is that of a magnet compass. A magnetic compass is attracted in a certain direction, by its very nature, which nature it is powerless to change of itself (nor does it want to). The curse, in effect, 'reversed the polarity' of all humans 'descening from Adam by ordinary generation,' such that rather than being attracted to the glory of God, it becomes repellent to us. Our 'needle' points South because of that switch in polarity. We hate the idea of a supreme judge who will hold us accountable ("for our deeds are evil"), we repress this knowledge in unrighteousness (Rom. 1), etc. The needle spins _freely_ -- as in free from some outside force -- but that needle is not free from its natural magnetic properties -- it turns where it wants to turn, by nature. In regeneration, the grace of God soveriegnly and supernaturally _reverses the polarity back_ such that we freely spin our 'needle' back to true North because we now want to. The teaching of predesination is not that God reaches down and grabs hold of that needle and forces it back toward himself--it's that he supernaturally changes our very nature, and we--now truly free--'spin our needle' back to him. Freedom of the will does mean freedom from outside force, but it does not mean freedom from our own nature.

A man is completely free to choose whatever his nature desires; and we always choose what we want most. What, then, will a "dead," "blind," "enemy" choose freely according to his nature? All that is not God. The problem is not our freedom, it's our nature. "We must be born again from above."

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago

oh man. "magnetic compass"; "descending"; I even proofread.

Ryan Salayer 5mo ago 💬 1

To my understanding that aligns very well with official Catholic doctrine. They teach that baptism removes the stain of original sin but not our “desire to sin” or concupiscence. It is by Gods grace that we are unburdened from the stain of original sin and by His grace that we grow in righteousness as we work to turn our need back to him as you put it.

I am not proof reading so please forgive me for any spelling errors.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago 💬 1

Highly recommend that Sproul article I sent. I think it would help clarify some of the issues.

Long story short, the rift between Rome and the Reformed is significant and irreparable unless Trent is completely repealed. You could look into the differences between _monergistic_ and _synergistic_ regeneration, you could look into the differences between sacerdotalism and the 'priesthood of all believers,' you could look at what the Reformed have to say about an _ex opere operato_ nature of the sacraments, transubstantiation, the 'immaculate conception' and role of Mary as co-mediatrix and therefore co-redemptrix, you could look at what the RCC means by the mass being a "re-presentation" of the "victim"...the list goes on and on, sadly.

The key place to start would probably be the debate over the '[Five Solas](https://reformationbiblecollege.org/blog/the-five-solas)'. Also helpful may be a review of the controversial "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" movement of the mid-nineties where a rapprochement was attempted, but failed: see Horton, "[ECT - A Critical Review](https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/evangelicals-and-catholics-together-a-critical-review)"

On these points, Rome and the Reformed are irreconcilable.

All that said...sigh...we can confess, uphold, and defend the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds in common. And that, at least, is a starting point. Appreciate the dialogue, my friend. 🤙

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 5mo ago

Oh man, how could I forget: one more major one that's upstream from most of what divides: the Roman idea of the _donum superadditum_ vs. the Reformed idea of the _donum concreatum_. That's basically at the headwaters of the doctrines of creation and anthropology (doctrine of man), influences hamartaology (doctrine of sin), and obvioiusly soteriology (doctrine of salvation) as well.

I don't mean to overwhelm with all this. I'm not sure just how hungry you are to delve into this, so I'm erring on the side of 'too much' information rather than too little 😅 apologies if it's too much.