Today's Los Angeles Times has an article on Reformation Day. Most Protestant churches, even most Evangelical churches, probably won't give the subject as much attention as a liberal non-Christian publication like the Los Angeles Times does. Similarly, we'll probably see many liberal media outlets criticizing the historicity of the infancy narratives in the coming weeks, while most churches (and others who should be involved) have less to say on the issue.
The Los Angeles Times article has some problems, but it does mention many of the benefits of the Reformation, and it's a positive article overall. We even get a couple of lines about justification that are relatively good:
"At the heart of the Reformation is the doctrine of justification by faith -- meaning people are saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, not by good deeds, Feldmeth said. Luther said works are important, but they are a natural outgrowth of salvation -- not crucial to earning it."
Later in the article, though:
"As for the red so visible on Reformation Sunday, it is steeped in symbolism. 'Red is, of course, the color of the Holy Spirit and of divine power, as at Pentecost, but it also is the color of martyrdom and may be understood to honor the martyrs who died in the terrible religious struggles that followed the turn from Rome,' explained Marshall, whose husband, father, sister and daughter are Lutheran pastors. 'In our day, we may honor both the Protestant and Roman Catholic saints who lost their lives for their faith.'"
I don't see a reason to honor Roman Catholic martyrs in the sense of publicly celebrating them. I can understand hoping for the best, hoping that those martyrs were saved in spite of their errors. Or I can understand acknowledging that injustice was involved in some cases or recognizing some virtue or another that a Roman Catholic martyr may have had. But the same could be said about other holidays or historical events that are often commemorated. There are two sides to every story. A British soldier during the Revolutionary War may have been a good husband or may have died unjustly. Maybe one of the Roman soldiers who carried out the beating and execution of Jesus Christ was good at providing for his children or was faithful to his friends. Do we usually mention such things at a time like the Fourth of July or the Easter season? Would you make the effort to mention that we can honor British or Roman soldiers if you were interviewed by the Los Angeles Times?
Try running searches under terms like "Reformation" and "Halloween" at Google News or with other news search engines. Contrast the results.
'A British Soldier during the Revolutionary War may have died unjustly.' Quite. And the loyalists who were forced into exile believed in their cause just as much as George Washington believed in his. The Englishman sees the Amercan revolution as a tragedy, but recognises that it was the blindness of the British Government that caused it, that the dead at Bunker Hill or Yorktown were victims of the obduracy of the British Government together, just as many Roman Catholics who died were killed by the blindness and stupidity of the Papacy. Every morning in the week I pass the site of the hanging of two Roman Catholics as traitors. Why were they hung? Because the then Pope said that it was the duty of every Roman Catholic in England and Wales to depose Queen Elizabeth I. He made them traitors, just as Mary I made many sick of the Roman Church by her thirst for blood.
ReplyDeleteRant over.
"I can understand hoping for the best, hoping that those martyrs were saved in spite of their errors."
ReplyDeleteWhy would their errors save them if faith is all that is necessary to salvation? The very reason why Martin Luther invented salvation by faith only was so he could claim that Augustine was a Christian even though he was a Catholic, and so he himself (Luther) could get by with not be baptized rightly and relying on his heretical Catholic baptism. Faith only salvation was just a ploy to claim that old Romies and people who received the false baptism of Rome (Luther and Calvin themselves) would be saved in spite of their errors.
Faith only salvation and Calvinistic election was invented because the Catholics who were leaving Rome to become Protestants had to be assured that their parents didn't go to hell. "Salvation is by faith alone," that is, it's ok to leave Rome all you Romies because it doesn't mean you're admitting your papa is burning in hell, but rather he might have been elect and saved by faith even though he was a dirty Catholic. That's why it was invented. It's too bad men today are too blind to see it. Protestantism is just an affirmation of Rome, an excuse to let Catholics be saved in their errors. Protestantism is the pillar that holds Rome up.
ReplyDeleteEgomakarios said:
ReplyDelete“Why would their errors save them if faith is all that is necessary to salvation? The very reason why Martin Luther invented salvation by faith only was so he could claim that Augustine was a Christian even though he was a Catholic, and so he himself (Luther) could get by with not be baptized rightly and relying on his heretical Catholic baptism.”
You’re making a series of historical claims for which you offer no documentation. As I’ve discussed elsewhere (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/francis-beckwiths-reversion-to-roman.html), the concept of justification through faith alone predates the Reformation. It’s Biblical and patristic.
I didn’t say that “their errors save them”. And I’ve explained elsewhere (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/10/eternal-security-before-reformation.html) that it doesn’t make sense to categorize Augustine as a Roman Catholic. You never responded to what I wrote, even though I was replying to what you had asserted.
Not only do you offer no documentation for your historical claims above, but those claims are highly unlikely on their face. Why would Luther go through all that he experienced in order to avoid getting baptized in a way that you consider acceptable? And why would Luther think that Augustine was the central figure in such an evaluation of baptism?
You go on to write:
“Protestantism is just an affirmation of Rome, an excuse to let Catholics be saved in their errors.”
If it’s “just an affirmation of Rome” (which doesn’t make sense conceptually, but let’s overlook that fact for the moment), then why did Protestantism originate? And what was the purpose of all of the suffering, martyrdom, writing of books, and such that occurred over the centuries, done in the name of opposing Roman Catholicism? What about Protestants who don’t believe that justification is attained through baptism? Are their beliefs also “just an affirmation of Rome”, and were they also attempting to argue for the validity of their and their parents’ baptism?
Egomarkarios,
ReplyDelete1. One of your perennial deficiencies is that you often contradict yourself.
On the one hand "Protestantism is just an affirmation of Rome," but on the other, you say that "faith alone salvation" is an invention of Protestants.
It is plainly apparent that you have never taken a basic course in church history and are parroting the hardline Campbellite theology.
You should just admit this outright. Are you or are you not what we would term a "Campbellite?"
2. You also continually misuse standard theological language. "Justification by faith alone" and "salvation by faith alone" are not the same thing. Salvation is a wider category of which justification is a part. We are justified by faith alone and saved by grace alone.
3. You also have a tendency to import erroneous definitions from your own theology into ours. For example, Campbellite theology defines "faith" as assent to a set of facts - intellectual assent. To make up for the rest, it then mixes works and baptismal regeneration into justification, thereby smuggling merit into the equation.
We Protestants affirm that we are justified by faith alone, but we do not define "faith" in such bare terms. Intellectual assent not "faith." Faith is accompanied by works, it actually manifests in a transformed life.
4. And despite your repudiation of Rome on a regular basis, have you ever, in your incapacity to engage in self-criticism never paused to think about how close your theology is to that of Rome? You both affirm a form of baptismal regeneration. While Rome smuggles merit into justification, you reduce "faith" into intellectual assent and then smuggle works in elsewhere.
If we want to start casting historical stones, we could talk about the motivations of Alexander Campbell, who, in essence, was little different in his aims than Joseph Smith. We can talk about the way he deceived the Baptist association of which he was a part. We can talk about his "one true holy apostolic church" ideas - ideas, by the way that are shared, in principle, by Rome itself, not to mention Orthodoxy. I know Campbellitism well enough to know that it reduces to the same high church attitude. It claims not to be reformed, but like Mormonism, to be a restoration movement. How many heretical movements have made that same claim? How many synagogues of Satan claim to this very day to be the one true holy apostolic visible church?
Are you so ignorant that you can't see the difference between restoration based on modern day prophets falsely so called, and resoration based on a return to the Bible and to finally putting Sola Scriptura into practice? The reformers could have restored the church, if they had actually applied the principle of Sola Scriptura rather than rendering it lipservice so they could keep infant baptism, ever-virginity Mariolatry, and acceptance of their Catholic baptisms. For their love of these 3 errors, they made themselves total failures.
ReplyDeleteAre you so ignorant that you can't see the difference between restoration based on modern day prophets falsely so called, and resoration based on a return to the Bible and to finally putting Sola Scriptura into practice?
ReplyDeleteThis is unintentionally comical.
1. It's nice to see that you are admitting you are a follower of Alexander Campbell's heresy. I'll take it your failure to say "Yes" or "No" to that simple question is an admission.
2. Sola Scriptura? Really, is that what Campbell believed? Are you so ignorant of the definition of Sola Scriptura that you cannot tell the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura?
3. Apropos 2, perhaps you are unaware of exactly what Mr. Campbell did.His repudiation of confessions provided a convenient manner for him to excuse heresy. At first, they were willing to make concessions to him. The Redstone Association had adopted the Philadelphia Confession and asked that all the member churches do the same. They allowed Brush Run Church an exception in 1813. The 1826 Franklin Association (KY) devoted a circular letter to the right use of confessions and asserted that a bare appeal to Scripture is a vain appeal, as, in the past, heresies had resulted from the faulty interpretation of Scripture. Clearly, Campbell had exceeded the concept of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith, but confessions and other writings are valid and useful insofar as they conform to Scripture, for Solo Scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the only authority to which Christians may make legitimate appeal or use. Campbell's cry was "the Bible only." That, Ego, is not "Sola Scriptura."
4. Apropos 3, it is notable that your definition of Sola Scriptura is absolutely in line with that of the Arians at the time of Nicea and just about every other heretical group that has sprung up. Just as the Arians did not return to the Bible, neither did Campbell.
Campbell was just as much a false teacher as Joseph Smith. The 19th century was full of such people. They were just two. What Campbell did was not "restore" a church. He declared that your little group IS the church, the one true holy apostolic church. So, Ego, once again, you ultimately agree with Rome in principle. Are you so blind you don't see that? Yes, he was a false prophet with "new" revelations insofar as he claimed to be "restoring" the church, just like every other restoration teacher of the 19th century, and it's also comical that for all intents and purposes he did set himself up as a "modern day prophet" in his own day, for the movement coalesced around him.
You should read the abominable "Sermon on the Law" that he preached in 1816. The man was already displaying his lack of character by joining a Baptist association (Redstone) while rejecting their confession. He sought to subvert it from inside by using the name "Baptist" to gain legitimacy. His sermon, if you'd care to read it, effectively dismisses the whole Old Testament as not authoritative - just as so many heretics in the history of the Church, like Marcion. So much for "Sola Scriptura."
The reformers could have restored the church, if they had actually applied the principle of Sola Scriptura rather than rendering it lipservice so they could keep infant baptism, ever-virginity Mariolatry, and acceptance of their Catholic baptisms.
For starters. Sola Scriptura does not automatically select for any particular exegetical conclusion, so everything you said here is a non-sequitur from start to finish. It has to do with the infallibility of Scripture and its material and formal sufficiency. I'm a credobaptist, and I disagree with Paedobaptists, but I do not rule them "no true Christian" on the basis of that. Likewise, baptism does not signify identification with a church, but with Christ himself, so your position could only be true you affirm that baptism signifies identification with a church. You're a step away from saying it places an indelible mark on the soul.
It thus agree with administrator baptism then? Hmmm, who else believes in that? Rome Who else says baptism identifies you with a particular visible communion? Rome! Who here is the one really perpetuating Romanism, Ego?
One of the problems with administrator baptism for you, like it is with the Landmarkers, is that if one single link in the chain is invalid, the whole chain is invalidated. Tell us, Ego, can you trace all the links in the chain to establish that your baptism is proper?
And your view of baptism is just as sacramental as that of Rome.
And how does retaining Paedobaptism violate the gospel ? That would only be true if you denied justification by faith alone and say you have to have your sins washed away in the waters of baptism. So does Rome, You are the one agreeing with Rome's doctrines here, not us.
No confession ensconces "Mariolatry" in Protestantism. For all your bluster, Egomarkarios, it says a lot when you argue right along with Rome when it comes to trying to pin Marian ideas on the early Reformers. You do this for baptism. You do this for your views on salvation. Your ecclesiology is a close match too.
And so what if the Reformers retained some things. Marian dogmas were not de fide in Rome at that time anyway. That's irrelevant.
You, Ego, need to repent of your sins, cast yourself on the merits of Christ alone by faith alone, and cling to Him alone. You are giving strong evidence of
being unregenerate and still in your sins. You call black white and white black by attributing the works of God to the devil himself as you did in another thread. You are a false teacher, no different than any Roman Catholic lay apologist.
Notice how little concern Egomakarios has for documenting his claims and interacting with the arguments of others. After making false claims that he couldn't defend earlier in this thread, he goes on to make more careless assertions in his latest post:
ReplyDelete"The reformers could have restored the church, if they had actually applied the principle of Sola Scriptura rather than rendering it lipservice so they could keep infant baptism, ever-virginity Mariolatry, and acceptance of their Catholic baptisms. For their love of these 3 errors, they made themselves total failures."
Why should anybody agree with you in singling out those three issues and considering them sufficient to make the reformers "total failures"? None of those three issues are defined as foundational by scripture. The perpetual virginity of Mary, taken by itself (not considered in light of church infallibility, for example), is a relatively minor issue. And while John Calvin sometimes questioned Biblical interpretations cited for or against the concept, I'm not aware of any passage in which he affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. What about the less prominent reformers, men like Thomas Bilney and William Tyndale? Do you have documentation showing that they affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary? Perhaps they did. I don't know. But you ought to address more than Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Far more people were involved in the Reformation. Those three have a lot of significance, but they don't represent the entirety of the Reformation.
Sola Scriptura? Really, is that what Campbell believed? Are you so ignorant of the definition of Sola Scriptura that you cannot tell the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura?
ReplyDeleteSo you admit that you don't believe in Scripture alone. You believe in Scripture plus Roman Catholic traditions such as infant baptism. Its your right. Choose to disobey God if you like. You certainly have a right to choose to burn in hell.
So you admit that you don't believe in Scripture alone.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, I do. I affirm that Scripture is the sole and sufficient infallible and inerrant authority for the faith and practics of the Church. I affirm that other items, like creeds and confessions also hold authority, but this authority is not infallible and is subject to Scripture.
That, Ego,is the proper definition of "Sola Scriptura." It has been so from the time the phrase was coined. The only way I don't believe in Scripture alone here is if you redefine "Sola Scriptura" just like Alexander Campbell did.
You affirm something else out of the mind of heretics like Arians, Marcionites, and Campbellites. You affirm SolO Scriptura, the belief in the Bible and only the Bible.
Unlike me, you can't appeal to any traditions for something as simple as canonicity. You can't even appeal to a simple confession of faith representing what your ecclesiastical community affirms. You are in quite a pickle there.
You believe in Scripture plus Roman Catholic traditions such as infant baptism.
Either,
1. You don't bother to read what others write to you
or
2. You are a chronic liar.
I'm inclined to think 2.
I said EXPLICITLY that I am a credobaptist. If you don't know what this word means, look it up in a dictionary. I affirm the First and Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith. Are these Paedobaptist documents?
B. The only similarity between Presbyterians and Catholics on baptism is that both baptize babies. Lutherans affirm baptismal regeneration, but not the infusion of grace in which Catholics believe. You would do well to actually study up on what these groups believe.
C. Presbyterians, like Anglicans, and Methodists will also baptize adults - by immersion even. So, are all Presbyterian baptisms invalid?
D. The Didache is not absolutely committed to baptism by immersion. So, do you object to all non immersion modes even if they are believers baptism? Do you consign all not baptized by your standards to hell? Don't go on about Calvinism and the chosen few if you are indeed consigning so many to hell.
e. You seem to be operating with the assumption that "Paedobaptist" = Roman Catholic. Where is the supporting argument? Oh, that's right, you don't give supporting arguments for 99 percent of what you write. "Orthodox" was a better opponent than you. Dave Armstrong is a better opponent than you.
So, your answer - rather consistently - to the Roman Catholic claim that their church goes back to at least the 2nd century is to concede the question. Paedobaptism was around before the distinctively Roman Catholic Church as defined by you and Rome was around. You may want to read the literature instead of parroting what is told to you by the false teachers populating your ecclesiastical community - I will not dignify your community by calling it a "church." Here's a thought, get a book on church history and read it.
You certainly have a right to choose to burn in hell.
Ah, so now the Phantom of the Opera has removed his mask so we can see the ugliness beneath.
1. He sees Romanism as a false religion.
2. He sees justification by faith alone as false doctrine and attributes the doctrines of grace themselves to the devil.
3. He lays emphasis on believer's baptism that is regenerationist such that he excludes all who disagree, particularly Paedobaptist.
4. He directly consigns me to hell.
5. So, we can conclude that I was right, he believes his ecclesiastical community is the one true holy orthodox apostolic church to the exclusion of all others. He believes no differently than every truly heretical group from Marcion to the Watchtower.
Notice here that while I appeal to Egomarkios to repent of his sin and trust in Christ alone and divest himself of his merits, his response to me is to say I have a right to burn in hell. In thread after thread he talks about God's love and how evil Calvinism is for perverting God's love and justice, and when confronted with somebody he regards as an infidel, what does Egomarkarios do? He issues no gospel call; he tells them they can burn in hell.
I say again, Ego, you call white black and black white. You attribute the works of God to the devil. You are displaying an unregenerate heart of stone and flint. You must repent of your sin and cast yourself on Christ alone.