|
|
Post by gertzadik on Mar 1, 2006 16:21:54 GMT -5
peace in abundance--
This is a quick question for some reformed cats. To know the truth behind anything, you first look to the source and ask the obvious questions.
In looking at the the Reformed Faith, immediately I have a question that I have never heard an explanation for. Why is it "Re-formed" and not "Re-jected?"
It you reform something, there is no real change other than the appearence. For example, I can take a slab of clay and sculp a bust of Socrates. I can the re-form it into a vase. Same clay- different appearence.
If you walk into a Lutheran Church today, you will swear its Catholic. I see this as popeless Catholicism. Even the 95 Thesis didnt seem to disagree with a lot except for pennances and the authority of the pope. With all this in mind, "Re-formation" seems like a word that fits perfect-- different appearence, same substance.
Why is it the Reformation and not the Rejection?
Thoughts???
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 1, 2006 16:33:57 GMT -5
..can't throw the Bath Water, I mean Holy Water, out with the baby now can we?
|
|
|
|
Post by jnorm88 on Mar 1, 2006 18:50:28 GMT -5
Its called Reformed because they were trying to "GO BACK" to something.
They wanted to get rid of all the scholastic ideas of the western Church and go back to the times and ideas of Saint Augustine........in many ways but not in others.
INLOVE Jnorm
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Mar 2, 2006 0:17:15 GMT -5
If I may interject
A study of Church history is absolutely necessary to understand the Reformation.
There was a Latin phrase that came out of the Reformation movement "Post Tenebras Lux" which means "After Darkness Light" it is one of my favorite phrases. The essence of what that meant for the heros of the Reformation was that the Church was in total darkness with the corruption of the Gospel since the conception of the Roman Catholic system takeover with its idol worship and False Gospel of Faith+Works=Salvation but alas the Returning LIGHT of the True Gospel has once again shined forth which is Justification through FAITH ALONE by GRACE ALONE because of the merits of CHRIST ALONE for the GLORY OF GOD ALONE taught to us by SCRIPTURE ALONE as our rule of faith and practice.
1. Sola Scriptura
2. Sola Fide
3. Sola Gratia
4. Sola Cristos
5. Sola de Gloria
These were the Five sola's of the Reformation which we believe to be the doctrines of the pure christian faith.
So what Re-formation meant and still means is that the truth of the HEART of Christianity the Gospel of Grace has been FORMED again hence the word RE-FORMATION.
Reformed Theology has made it its mission to defend and teach this truth. All protestant churches stem from the Reformed Church and Lutheran(basically reformed) church.
Do a search on the Five solas of the reformation and peep the math son.
one
|
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Mar 2, 2006 0:36:29 GMT -5
"The essence of what that meant for the heros of the Reformation was that the Church was in total darkness with the corruption of the Gospel since the conception of the Roman Catholic system takeover "
Rick,
does your qoute not confirm then that 'the Church' can err, and that very seriously? i mean, you even go so far as to say that the church was in 'total darkness'!! If that be the case then, how can an appeal to 'church history' ever be a legitimate starting point for discussing sound doctrine? how could it ever have ANY place in discussing whether a doctrine is legit or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Mar 2, 2006 1:02:20 GMT -5
Rick, does your qoute not confirm then that 'the Church' can err, and that very seriously? i mean, you even go so far as to say that the church was in 'total darkness'!! I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. The answer I would like to give would be very lengthy but suffice it to just state for the time being that even though "Church" was corrupted and in grevious error God has ALWAYS maintained His true remnant church in the midst of it. You know church history so I don't think I would have to mention the men and women who attempted to correct the "Church" during the dark ages of the church system for example Wycliff, huss etc...? But to answer your question does even the True Church err? Absolutely. Does it err in the essentials of the Faith? In my biblical research, Absolutely not. I know we disagree but just wanted to clear what I meant up. |
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Mar 13, 2006 11:04:59 GMT -5
In looking at the the Reformed Faith, immediately I have a question that I have never heard an explanation for. Why is it "Re-formed" and not "Re-jected?" Peace to you as well gertz! The Reformation was a rejection of Romanism. But reformation does not always have to be as drastic a seperation. Indeed we are in need of a "new reformation" in our day, this reformation can build upon the first one. Shalom- DoX |
|
|
|
Post by gertzadik on Mar 23, 2006 16:36:51 GMT -5
2 Follow up Questions ...
#1) Why isnt there a re-formed Gnostic Church? A Re-formed Ebionite Sect? Today why dont we have Re-formed Mormon or Jehova's Whitness'?
#2) Is this Reformed Religion built on a foundation of Martin Luther's Re-formatin ... or it is a Re-storal of the 1st Century Faith?
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Mar 23, 2006 17:15:02 GMT -5
2 Follow up Questions ... #1) Why isnt there a re-formed Gnostic Church? A Re-formed Ebionite Sect? Today why dont we have Re-formed Mormon or Jehova's Whitness'? #2) Is this Reformed Religion built on a foundation of Martin Luther's Re-formatin ... or it is a Re-storal of the 1st Century Faith? peace simple, what was re-formed in those sects that you just mentioned? I am not sure I'm following you. Did they bring truth again? |
|
|
|
Post by gertzadik on Mar 26, 2006 14:20:01 GMT -5
Ill be blunt--
My conviction is that Protestanism is nothing but Catholicism packaged different. To re-form something means it is the same substance w/ a different outward appearance.
I hear people explain the Reformation like this ...
"The Church strayed into the heretical teachings of The Catholic Church, but praise be to Martin Luther and his doctrines for bringing us out of it."
My point is this-- IF the Church is really the "ekklesia" (the called out ones) it would have never been lead into Catholicism in the first place! Catholicism (Universalism) is nothing but Paganism with underlying Biblical Concepts.
I see Reformation was Catholicism in disguise. Bottom line: Martin Luther's only beef w/ Catholicism was Popal Authority & Works. Thats it ... If thats youre only beef, youre not lead by Truth. Not too many Reformed cats want to discuss things about Martin Luther of Calvin because they know the type of man he was. Anti-Semitic, Racist, and False Teacher. Thats just being honest ...
The Reformed Faith in no way reflects the 1st Century believers. IN fact, Martin Luther challenges Ya'akov Ha Tzadik (James the Just, writer of James)! He calls James "the epistle of straw" because it doesnt fit with his doctines. Doesnt this worry anyone?
So, what im saying is that "Re-formed Faith" is Catholicism in a different context. Yall believe the same doctines (w/ an exception of works/faith & popal authority) and even use the same arguments to back teachings (like the Counsel of Nicea, St. Augestine's Writings, "Church Fathers" & etc ...). The W.O.R.D. is not sufficient?
So yo- forget a Re-form-ation ... yall need a Re-ject-tion
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Mar 27, 2006 11:02:19 GMT -5
Ill be blunt-- My conviction is that Protestanism is nothing but Catholicism packaged different. To re-form something means it is the same substance w/ a different outward appearance. I hear people explain the Reformation like this ... "The Church strayed into the heretical teachings of The Catholic Church, but praise be to Martin Luther and his doctrines for bringing us out of it." My point is this-- IF the Church is really the "ekklesia" (the called out ones) it would have never been lead into Catholicism in the first place! Catholicism (Universalism) is nothing but Paganism with underlying Biblical Concepts. I see Reformation was Catholicism in disguise. Bottom line: Martin Luther's only beef w/ Catholicism was Popal Authority & Works. Thats it ... If thats youre only beef, youre not lead by Truth. Not too many Reformed cats want to discuss things about Martin Luther of Calvin because they know the type of man he was. Anti-Semitic, Racist, and False Teacher. Thats just being honest ... The Reformed Faith in no way reflects the 1st Century believers. IN fact, Martin Luther challenges Ya'akov Ha Tzadik (James the Just, writer of James)! He calls James "the epistle of straw" because it doesnt fit with his doctines. Doesnt this worry anyone? So, what im saying is that "Re-formed Faith" is Catholicism in a different context. Yall believe the same doctines (w/ an exception of works/faith & popal authority) and even use the same arguments to back teachings (like the Counsel of Nicea, St. Augestine's Writings, "Church Fathers" & etc ...). The W.O.R.D. is not sufficient? So yo- forget a Re-form-ation ... yall need a Re-ject-tion peace WOW! thats gotta be the biggest strawman I ever seen built up, LOL  Where on God's green earth did you research this or even get the slightest of this misleading ideas? Are you sure you want to discuss this? You let me know and we can get down with this one, this is probably my favorite subjects to discuss, let me know son. At any rate I will address this post when I get home, I am at work and really can't get into details with any discussion But I will quickly say that I agree with you to a certain extent. I also believe that most of the "protestant" church is roman catholicism repackaged as well, I feel ya on that one. But the other assertions are just plain misconcieved. one |
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 27, 2006 14:38:19 GMT -5
Ill be blunt-- My conviction is that Protestanism is nothing but Catholicism packaged different. To re-form something means it is the same substance w/ a different outward appearance. I hear people explain the Reformation like this ... "The Church strayed into the heretical teachings of The Catholic Church, but praise be to Martin Luther and his doctrines for bringing us out of it." My point is this-- IF the Church is really the "ekklesia" (the called out ones) it would have never been lead into Catholicism in the first place! Catholicism (Universalism) is nothing but Paganism with underlying Biblical Concepts. I see Reformation was Catholicism in disguise. Bottom line: Martin Luther's only beef w/ Catholicism was Popal Authority & Works. Thats it ... If thats youre only beef, youre not lead by Truth. Not too many Reformed cats want to discuss things about Martin Luther of Calvin because they know the type of man he was. Anti-Semitic, Racist, and False Teacher. Thats just being honest ... The Reformed Faith in no way reflects the 1st Century believers. IN fact, Martin Luther challenges Ya'akov Ha Tzadik (James the Just, writer of James)! He calls James "the epistle of straw" because it doesnt fit with his doctines. Doesnt this worry anyone? So, what im saying is that "Re-formed Faith" is Catholicism in a different context. Yall believe the same doctines (w/ an exception of works/faith & popal authority) and even use the same arguments to back teachings (like the Counsel of Nicea, St. Augestine's Writings, "Church Fathers" & etc ...). The W.O.R.D. is not sufficient? So yo- forget a Re-form-ation ... yall need a Re-ject-tion peace *lurking/watching* sounds/feels somewhat like an "outside the camp" argument coming on... "Re-formed Baptist gone Wild" |
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Mar 27, 2006 14:53:48 GMT -5
"The Reformed Faith in no way reflects the 1st Century believers. '
Personally, im not interested in re-forming the 1st century church in its entirety for today anyhow.
Note, i specify * entirety *.
1.) I'm not living in the last days
2.) I'm not living within the covenantal transition (2 Cor. 3)
3.) i'm not under any advice from Paul regarding not marrying and so forth (1 Cor. 7) because of the coming great tribulation
4.) I'm not looking for the 'behold, I come quickly' return of Christ because He is present with us NOW
5. ) well......you get the point.
i no more would 're-form' these things then i would re-institute animal sacrifices.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Mar 27, 2006 16:29:47 GMT -5
just a thought/question here... how many, if not all, present day denominations (Pres, Bapt, COGIC, etc) are NOT, emphasis on NOT, in some way trying to "toe the line"(i.e. do the exact opposite of you) on at least 50% of of your list... 1.) I'm not living in the last days 2.) I'm not living within the covenantal transition (2 Cor. 3) 3.) i'm not under any advice from Paul regarding not marrying and so forth (1 Cor. 7) because of the coming great tribulation 4.) I'm not looking for the 'behold, I come quickly' return of Christ because He is present with us NOW  My thoughts are that the LAST thing the Church needs is to "RE" form to anything. I believe it needs to look at the obvious "TRANS" forming that has been on going since Adam and keep right on rollin! Not that it will not do that anyway, the Presbyterians and Baptist not withstanding(re-form portion), for it is Christ who is TRANS-Forming His own Body with or without our consent. (blablablabla Iraq) |
|
|
|
Post by gertzadik on Mar 27, 2006 20:11:20 GMT -5
King Neb-
You can either have a religion about Y'shua, or the religion of Y'shua.
DOG-
Thats the pt. of my posting, awk ... for people to get back at me. If I am wrong I want to know- but to respond like you said, you would have to answer some tough questions.
1) Was the Catholic Church ever the "Real Church?"
2) Did Martin Luther disagree with anything the Catholic Church taught besides Popal Authority & Works/Faith?
3) Was Martin Luther Anti-Semitic? Racist?
4) Did Martin Luther agree with James?
5) Does the Counsel of Nicea and the Religion of Constantine have authority with believers?
Im interested in how you would respond.
Shalom Rav (peace in abundance)
|
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Mar 27, 2006 20:45:23 GMT -5
King Neb-
You can either have a religion about Y'shua, or the religion of Y'shua.
okkkkkk.....
|
|
|
|
Post by gertzadik on Apr 5, 2006 11:22:28 GMT -5
NEB-
What you have said yourself is that you have a religion about Y'shua, but not the religion of Y'shua.
How can you have a different religion than your Teacher?
DOG-
Im bumping this just in case you forgot ...
Aight--
Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 7, 2006 11:13:25 GMT -5
Dirt mcGERTZ ;D,
1) Was the Catholic Church ever the "Real Church?"
Yes. Catholic meaning universal, the whole body of Christ as opposed to the gnostics of the day before the pollution of greek mythologies and idolatries.
2) Did Martin Luther disagree with anything the Catholic Church taught besides Popal Authority & Works/Faith?
Of course. He opposed there many sacraments, Mary as Divine, praying to saints, the Relics, and form of worship, their view of the means of Grace etc....
3) Was Martin Luther Anti-Semitic? Racist?
Thats not even to be entertained, of course not. That is a misinterpretation of His works by misquotes of not taking his assertions in context.
4) Did Martin Luther agree with James?
No then yes. At first he didn't but later in his life he accepted it(but I bet they left out that info to ya).
5) Does the Counsel of Nicea and the Religion of Constantine have authority with believers?
Well since Constantine doesn't have a religion thats a NO. Did the counsel of NIcea get the doctrine right? yes so its biblical which therefore has authority over believers being that the Scriptures are our sole source of authority
one
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 7, 2006 14:31:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ReGeNeRATE on Apr 7, 2006 16:57:31 GMT -5
word! ;D
|
|
