What Caused the Reformation?

The Cripplegate, New Generation of Non-Conformists ^ | Oct 28,2014 | Nathan Busenitz, professor of theology at Cripplegate's The Master’s Seminary

[RnMomof7]

What caused the Reformation?

Many people might answer that question by pointing to Martin Luther and his 95 Theses.

But if you were to ask Luther himself, he would not point to himself or his own writings. Instead, he would give all the credit to God and His Word.

Near the end of his life, Luther declared: “All I have done is put forth, preach and write the Word of God, and apart from this I have done nothing. . . . It is the Word that has done great things. . . . I have done nothing; the Word has done and achieved everything.”

Elsewhere, he exclaimed: “By the Word the earth has been subdued; by the Word the Church has been saved; and by the Word also it shall be reestablished.”

Noting Scripture’s foundational place in his own heart, Luther wrote: “No matter what happens, you should say: There is God’s Word. This is my rock and anchor. On it I rely, and it remains. Where it remains, I, too, remain; where it goes, I, too, go.”

Luther understood what caused the Reformation. He recognized that it was the Word of God empowered by the Spirit of God preached by men of God in a language that the common people of Europe could understand and when their ears were exposed to the truth of God’s Word it pierced their hearts and they were radically changed.

It was that very power that had transformed Luther’s own heart, a power that is summarized in the familiar words of Hebrews 4:12: “The Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword.”

During the late middle ages, the Roman Catholic Church had imprisoned God’s Word in the Latin language, a language the common people of Europe did not speak. The Reformers unlocked the Scriptures by translating them. And once the people had the Word of God, the Reformation became inevitable.

We see this commitment to the Scriptures even in the centuries prior to Martin Luther, beginning with the Forerunners to the Reformation:

In the 12th century, the Waldensians translated the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate into their regional French dialects. According to tradition, they were so committed to the Scriptures that different Waldensian families would memorize large sections of the Bible. That way, if Roman Catholic authorities found them and confiscated their printed copies of Scripture, they would later be able to reproduce the entire Bible from memory.

In the 14th century, John Wycliffe and his associates at Oxford translated the Bible from Latin into English. Wycliffe’s followers, known as the Lollards, went throughout the countryside preaching and singing passages of Scripture in English.

In the 15th century, Jan Huss preached in the language of the people, and not in Latin, making him the most popular preacher in Prague at the time. Yet, because Huss insisted that Christ alone was the head of the church, not the pope, the Catholic Council of Constance condemned him for heresy and burned him at the stake (in 1415).

In the 16th century, as the study of Greek and Hebrew were recovered, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, with the New Testament being completed in 1522.

In 1526, William Tyndale completed a translation of the Greek New Testament into English. A few years later he also translated the Pentateuch from Hebrew. Shortly thereafter he was arrested and executed as a heretic—being strangled and then burned at the stake. According to Fox’s Book of Martyrs, Tyndale’s last words were “Lord, Open the King of England’s Eyes.” And it was just a couple years after his death that King Henry VIII authorized the Great Bible in England—a Bible that was largely based on Tyndale’s translation work. The Great Bible laid the foundation for the later King James version (which was completed in 1611).

The common thread, from Reformer to Reformer, was an undying commitment to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, such that they were willing to sacrifice everything, including their own lives, to get the Word of God into the hands of the people.

They did this because they understood that the power for spiritual reformation and revival was not in them, but in the gospel (cf. Rom. 1:16–17). And they used the Latin phrase Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) to emphasize the truth that God’s Word was the true power and ultimate authority behind all they said and did.

It was ignorance of Scripture that made the Reformation necessary. It was the recovery of the Scripture that made the Reformation possible. And it was the power of the Scripture that gave the Reformation its enduring impact, as the Holy Spirit brought the truth of His Word to bear on the hearts and minds of individual sinners, transforming them, regenerating them, and giving them eternal life.

[metmom]

But why do Protestants follow Luther and the doctrine that he invented 1400 years after Christ, his doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

Why don't you ask some Protestants who follow Luther?

I don't know any that do. We follow Christ, not man.

That Luther came to the same conclusions about sola Scriptura as we do is irrelevant. All that means is that that's what Scripture teaches if people that far apart in time and space come to the same conclusions using the Bible.

It's a complete fallacy that having a church determine doctrine is better than Scripture determining doctrine. All that ends up happening is the people then disagree about the CCC instead of Scripture. It does NOTHING to stop varying interpretations because the CCC then needs to be interpreted and what body of the Catholic church has poasted an infallible interpretation of the CCC?

"To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

To be deep in Scripture is to cease to be Catholic.

[metmom]

Was Peter's office transferred? History tells us that it was, and so does the Bible, as Isaiah 22 shows the succession in office of vice-regents of the Davidic kingdom.

Scripture doesn't tell us and grabbing some example of something similar out of the OT does not prove a thing.

[metmom]

Unfortunately, Protestants generally ignore this plain biblical evidence for the papacy, reading the Bible through the human traditions of Luther and his disciples.

Again, Catholics have been so indoctrinated into following a human leader, that it is simply beyond the comprehension of any Catholics I have ever conversed with that others do not do the same thing, that we don't follow Luther or Calvin or whoever.

RC's have been told time and again that Christians follow Christ and no one else, and yet RC's trot out the same old tired canard as if it were an original idea.

[metmom]

That’s a lot of *It is written.....*

You’d think it was important to God or something.....

[xone]

But why do Protestants follow Luther and the doctrine that he invented

First off, all 'protestants' aren't the same. All Lutherans aren't. Some have abandoned the Confessional Lutheranism of the Book of Concord. However, none of them 'follow Luther'. We follow Christ. As for the sole authority of Scripture, do you agree it is God's Word? If so, when a conflict arises, how can your manmade doctrine supersede God's Word? If you don't consider it God's Word, then we have an entirely different problem.

[Springfield Reformer]

See post 144. You would not call this individual a Protestant? They simply fall into the category of “third thing?” Are people who believe those things (being born again, etc.) outside Protestantism?

I am not digressing to discussing other people.  How about this. If you want to talk about whether something someone is saying is historically Protestant, look it up in a historically Protestant confession (Westminster, London Baptist, Canons of Dort, Augsburg, etc.).  Then you'll know, and you won't have to rely on my opinion.  Then we could discuss this objectively, rather than getting lost in the quagmire of personal opinion.

Therein lies the problem with the revolt as Luther pointed to in his Letter to the ‘Christians’ of Antwerp and my point.

I have already refuted your misuse of Luther.  He attributes divergence from Scriptural truth to demonic activity, NOT Sola Scriptura, and indeed, even now, the most notable examples of so-called problematic "Protestants" are based on a rejection of Sola Scriptura in favor of mystical experiences pretending to reveal new truth (Oneness Pentecostalism, for example, Jim Jones for another. Jim Jones was telling his people to use their Bibles for toilet paper. Etc.).  So your analysis suffers from an oversimplification that consistently yields misinformation.  You can correct it by referring yourself to objective confessional standards. But that's entirely up to you.

Luther and his followers opened the door for this mess. Every man believing he can interpret the Bible for himself.

No, Luther and many who came before and many who came after broke the monopoly of a corrupted magisterium.  It is a gross oversimplification to analyze the Reformation in terms of one man.  Was he Superman, able to cow entire nations with superpowers?  Or were there enough people who had been subjugated to the tyranny of Rome long enough, and were ready to breath free air once again?  The Reformation had been underway for a long time.  Luther just help topple an already brittle structure.  If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else.

As for whether every man can interpret Scripture for himself, it isn't a question of "can" but "must."  Other than the comatose, no one who looks at any printed text can avoid the interpretive process.  You see symbols, you render them into some sort of meaning, and presto you too are an interpreter. It cannot be avoided.  The real problem is epistemology.  How does one know one's interpretation is right?  This is already a long response, and I'm sure you know that standard back and forth on that, so I will defer that for later.  My main point here is that Luther didn't do anything but concede to reality.  That can be awkward when the "emperor" thinks he is clothed, but really isn't.  Don't shoot the messenger.

If so, your ‘Church’ has the same problem that the Catholic Church had/has, combating heresy. For if they are outside the approved five Sola’s you mention, what else would you call it? Aren’t those ‘Sola’s’ your dogmas and deposit of the faith that you hold? If so, again, your religion has the same problem the Catholic Church has, yours has set itself up as the proper way to worship God. The difference, as I see it, your religion simply cut out the priesthood and the Ecclesia and have what? No teaching authority.

If they are outside the Five Solas they have abandoned Scripture. But again, your statement reflects the heavy tilt toward the genetic fallacy I mentioned earlier.  Define us by the content of our confession, not by the color of our buildings, or whatever.  Groups that no longer accept the Five Solas, at a minimum, cannot be considered historically Protestant.  Just like old Israel thought they could be considered sons of Abraham, just because they had the right lineage, some think that lineage defines the whole problem.  But what did John the Baptist tell those purported "sons of Abraham?"  

Matthew 3:9-11  And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.  (10)  And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.  (11)  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The axe is laid unto the root. What? Has John no respect for those who sit in the seat of Moses?  Apparently John thought the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the producing of present fruit, much more important than some weak genetic connection to past men of God.  If the tree bears no fruit, God Himself cuts it down. Not Martin Luther.

As for teaching authority, we have teachers, and we respect them. Paul said there would be some gifted by the Holy Spirit for just that task.  There is a great deal of unity among the confessionally reformed/Protestant/Evangelical on all the major issues staked out in the early reformed confessions.  The difference is we, as the Ecclesia, retain the right and the duty to discern truth from error.  When a false teacher enters our midst, we have an immune response.  We hold them accountable to Scripture. We are obligated to do our fair share of the work.

So how then can it be said that these folks are this ‘third thing’ you speak of? All of them spring from the same reformation ideas, attributed to the reformation.

No, they don't. You are engaging in a causal fallacy. Those who no longer hold Reformation ideas got there by rejecting those Reformation ideas. This is really pretty simple. Luther was right.  Divergence from Scripture is a spiritual attack.  It happens in the Ecclesia because that's where the tender sheep are, and that's where the wolves love to go.  In fact, if I were you, and I really wanted to know where the sheep were, I'd watch where the wolves went sniffing.  They're pretty good at finding sheep.  

So again, your genetic fallacy is showing.  You need to make a compelling case that the diversity of ideas you castigate are in fact associated with those who still hold to the Five Solas.  I don't think you can do that, so I won't be holding my breath.  

I would wager if that ‘third’ group was asked they would indicate that they are all part of reformation theology.

LOL! You must not get out much. I'll see your wager and go double against it. I was raised in the Baptist tradition, and the independent/fundamentalists absolutely reject the Protestant moniker.  There is a long tradition among them of having an entirely independent line of descent from apostolic times, incorporating a number of groups that were expelled and persecuted by Rome, including the Waldensians.  Yes, I am aware the history of the Waldensians is a bone of contention among ecclesiastical historians, and I haven't made my mind up yet how to view that.  But you are the one placing the wager, and I guarantee you there are pretty big chunks of what you would call Protestantism who, if asked for themselves, would reject the label.  So if this were a real wager (which it is not), I'd be already planning how to spend my winnings, no offense. :)

But this really gets back to one thing. For RCs here, the genetic fallacy is very hard to let go of.  It has become a fixture in the polemic, as false as it is, and it is a source of constant miscommunication.  You know what it reminds me of?  When an American visits the middle east (as I have), and sees all those dark-skinned men and women running around, and cannot tell the difference between an Arab and a Jew, and thinks they are all the same, when they are so completely different.  Asia is another place where that happens.  We get good at distinguishing ourselves from the "other," but not so good at seeing differences outside our own "tribe."  It's human nature.  I understand how that sort of thing happens.  But it tends to be a real conversation killer when the objective is getting at divine truth.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

Jesus is the Living Word who came to reveal God to man. The written Word is the bridge to God. Its not “just a book” except to the religious. Scripture has been around since at least Moses. Note the number of times NT writers quote OT Scripture. Notice how Jesus stops the satanic deception - “It is written.” Observe that the only offensive weapon that Paul mentions for spiritual warfare is the sword of the Spirit - the Word of God. Jesus reply to the religious folks of his time is still relevant today - “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

Jesus did not set aside a very well developed religion, with its ceremonies and priesthood to create yet another bureaucratic religious system. He came as the Last Adam, so that the spiritually dead could be reborn into God’s family as His children. Believers are no longer servants or even friends. They are God’s kids. And as a child of God, I don’t need to visit Uncle Charlie, or Pastor Bob, or get permission from some man in a fancy costume to see my Daddy. I have an open invitation to enter His presence at any time. There are no middlemen needed. And its GLORIOUS being in the presence of LOVE HIMSELF.

Excellent post.....

(I'm going to grab some of that for future use if you don't mind.......)

[RnMomof7]

Thank you

[Cap'n Crunch]

I picked up a book off my shelf that I haven’t read in a long time, ‘How the Reformation happened’ by Hilaire Belloc. In the opening introduction he said something that brought a smile to my face.

Essentially he said that to most Catholics, a Protestant is a Protestant is a Protestant.

So, I have learned a few things. While I do not agree with you, or the others here, (and I’m sure you will say the feeling is mutual) I thank you for your responses and the information that you supplied.

Although I do have a friend who is studying to be a Protestant Minister and we have talked at length, I see it has not even scratched the surface. I will endeavor to learn more about these matters.

Lastly, I admit having some misinformation yet there is some misinformation from the other side of the fence as well.

Is it all worth it? Yes, I believe it is and I believe you do as well.

So, Thank you again.

[Springfield Reformer]

Kindly spoken, and gratefully received.

Peace,

SR

[Kandy Atz]

>>>(I’m going to grab some of that for future use if you don’t mind.......)<<<<

Be my guest. I’ll watch for those royalty checks. ;-)

[metmom]

ooops.....

[Kandy Atz]

>>>>Unfortunately, Protestants generally ignore this plain biblical evidence for the papacy, reading the Bible through the human traditions of Luther and his disciples.<<<<

Its not so much ignoring, its rightly dividing God’s Word. Believers are neither Jews or Gentiles, but one Body of Christ with Jesus as the Head, and only Head. We are children of God, not servants, and joint heirs with Jesus.

The Church did not replace Israel. And there is no religious monarchy in the Body of Christ.

Peter’s “keys” were to the Kingdom of Heaven. I highly recommend a careful study of what that term means. It has nothing to do with the Body of Christ. The KOH has one Eternal King, it is a physical kingdom centered on Israel and exclusive in nature.

You cannot apply OT prophecies concerning Israel to the Body of Christ. Israel is God’s called out nation. Likewise, don’t rob Jesus of his Kingdom, even if it is presently in abeyance. What is the primary purpose of Matthew’s Gospel? It was to announce that the promised King and Kingdom had come to ISRAEL. Starting in verse 1 - the son of David - his right to the throne. Then wise men came seeking the King of the Jews. What did John the Baptist preach just before Jesus began his ministry - Matthew 3:2- Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. After the temptation, what were his first ministerial Words - Matthew 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. See a theme developing?

You don’t formulate a doctrine and then attempt to locate Biblical support. Go to God’s Word and see what He says about the Kingdom of Heaven, and THE KING. Neither have anything to do with the Church of this Age, where we are one Body, with Jesus as the Head. The Kingdom of Heaven was/is/and will be always for Israel. The KOH was prophesied in the OT, and announced by the angels and John the Baptist at the start of the NT. Jesus preached it until he was rejected and crucified. The Kingdom was offered again in Acts, and again Israel rejected it. It is now postponed until the 2nd Advent. The Kingdom Parables are helpful, especially the Parable of the Pounds in Luke 19 and the marriage feast in Matthew 22. Be very careful attempting to apply any of these to the Church - Believers are children of God, not servants. The same goes for all the prophecies related to the Kingdom of Heaven found in the OT. Don’t rob Israel of her special prophetic place as God’s called out nation.

After Israel rejected their King, the Mystery, hidden in God, was revealed by Paul - God is creating a called out body made up of neither Jews or Gentiles, but one Body of Christ, a perfect man. There is no King in the Body, only a Head (and there is only one HEAD - Jesus), and a Heavenly Father. There is no religious monarchy in the current Age of Grace because their is no physical kingdom on Earth in this Age, only a spiritual Kingdom of God which is over all, including the coming Kingdom of Heaven which will be Jewish and exclusive in its character, fulfilling all the OT & NT prophecies and types for Israel. There is, and will be, only one King of the KOH.

Since you are interested in OT Scripture, prayerfully receive 1 Samuel 8. As you read the chapter, consider the new relation God has given Believers as children of God. Note verse 7 & 8. How might this be relevant in this present age where many prefer religion, or religious leaders, over a personal relationship with the Father.

What’s so very interesting to me is, even though God KNEW the dangers of an earthly king, telling them specifically what WOULD happen, they still wanted one. And God, because of His great Love for His people, and the authority He delegated to man, allowed their request. There is so much Liberty in LOVE.

1 Samuel 8:4-9 (KJV)
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

[af_vet_1981]

No, Luther and many who came before and many who came after broke the monopoly of a corrupted magisterium. It is a gross oversimplification to analyze the Reformation in terms of one man. Was he Superman, able to cow entire nations with superpowers? Or were there enough people who had been subjugated to the tyranny of Rome long enough, and were ready to breath free air once again? The Reformation had been underway for a long time. Luther just help topple an already brittle structure. If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else.

The same can be said about any antisemite who hated the Jews and played an active role in their destruction. It prima facie proves he was not inspired by the LORD God of Israel.

Such a one is the foundation of faith groups named after him, and perhaps the bulk of the reformation also views him as foundational in what became a new series of religious communities, formed by the Gentiles who rebelled against the established, historical, and visible Catholic Church.

Another proof of the lack of divine inspiration for the reformation is the disunity amongst themselves they showed from the beginning, which has continued to this day.

It is true those principal reformation faith groups retained some of the truth they had inherited, on a sliding scale, and it was sufficient for those who actually obeyed the commandments of the Messiah.

[Elsie]

Essentially he said that to most Catholics, a Protestant is a Protestant is a Protestant.

It works both ways...

... to most Protestants, a Catholic is a Catholic is a Catholic.

Except for those EO folks.

They dress funnier...

[Elsie]

It is true those principal reformation faith groups retained some of the truth they had inherited, on a sliding scale, and it was sufficient for those who actually obeyed the commandments of the Messiah.

Just can NOT get away from them works!

Acts 15

[CrimsonTidegirl]

I’m not Catholic. I’m just tired of some people practically worshipping Luther & Calvin. I’m also tired of Protestants acting as if they are as pure as the driven snow. BTW, my life is fine, lol.

[CrimsonTidegirl]

Of Course:) His quotes on Jews are taken from his little book “On the Jews & their lies”. His quotes about women are gathered from “Luther’s Works”, a 55 volume set of his sermons, personal writings and more. Also, Google is your friend:)

[CrimsonTidegirl]

“On the Jews & their lies” is one source. Another source is the Works of Luther, that one can download online. Instead of blindly believing everything that you are taught, start researching to find out for yourself.

[CrimsonTidegirl]

I was mainly referring to certain people on here, mainly Calvinists, who stalk Catholics all over FR. So, you can calm down now, okay?