Reformation 500: Evangelical Alliance Warns Against Compromise With Catholicism

Christian Today ^ | 1/31/17 | Harry Farley

[marshmallow]

Evangelicals have been urged to celebrate the Reformation as "essential" to Christianity and resist attempts to dilute differences between Protestants and Catholics.

The Evangelical Alliance's statement to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, headlined on the Evangelical Alliance press release as "500 Years of Protest", praised the split as a recovery of Jesus' teaching. It emphasised ongoing "points of divergence" between the two traditions as well as acknowledging efforts at reconciliation and convergence after centuries of mistrust.

"As evangelicals, we owe a great deal of our doctrinal, spiritual and cultural identity to the Reformation," the statement read.

"The Reformation was not so much an innovation as a recovery – a recovery of the essential content of the 'evangel' or 'good news' of salvation proclaimed by Jesus Christ himself, and by his apostles. That work of recovery is reflected in our own designation as evangelicals."

It insists the "core distinctions" between Luther and the 16th-century Roman Catholic church "remain between modern-day evangelicals and Catholics despite efforts at reconciliation".

The statement marked a notably different tone to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York who called for repentance for the division. They lamented the "lasting damage done five centuries ago to the unity of the Church, in defiance of the clear command of Jesus Christ to unity in love".

[af_vet_1981]

Going up to preach to the people gathered at a feast of the Jews does not mean He religiously observed it, ...

That view would not explain why John included it in his Gospel, especially when John wrote of so many feasts: the feast of Passover, an unnamed feast (Purim, Weeks, Yom Kippur, ?), another feast of Passover, feast of Tablernacles (Sukkot), feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah), another feast of Passover.

There is no "of course," with even the Jews themselves rejecting it as Scripture (so Caths blame Prots). Your argument is with them.

Well it is not a movie, and it is written. The fact the Temple was rededicated is sanctified in the Gospel of John by none other than the Messiah.

So now the mention of a notable location makes observing a feast obligatory, and or makes a book which describes said event to be Scripture, though even the people who celebrate the event do not recognize it was being so, and it teaches a novel practice nowhere else examples and sanctioned in Scripture?

Surely the feast is not obligatory; do you keep any feasts ? By your reasoning, one could throw out the Gospel of John, since even the people who celebrate the event do not recognize it was being scripture either.

Sorry, your argument is just typical Catholic overreach in order to defend your Tradition.

Is that projection, along the lines of typical Protestant rebellion in order to defend your Tradition ?

[daniel1212]

That view would not explain why John included it in his Gospel,

But John only says the "And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch," (John 10:23) not that He took part in anything, thus you can only argue He may have somehow took part i it, which He could do for any Jewish cultural fest, which is fine, but which still does not warrant making a book that describes this festival to be Scripture, and which teaches a novel practice and error.

Well it is not a movie, and it is written. The fact the Temple was rededicated is sanctified in the Gospel of John by none other than the Messiah.

Being a movie is irrelevant (yet God could have wholly inspired revelation in that form), but that the Jews themselves reject this is substantial, since your reasoning is that since a preChristian era book by Jews describes a Jewish festival then it warrants it being Scripture, which is absurd. Since it is they who wrote the book and instituted the festival, then that they did not see this as warranting it being Scripture is weighty.

By your reasoning, one could throw out the Gospel of John, since even the people who celebrate the event do not recognize it was being scripture either.

False analogy, since John was written by Christians about 90AD, whereas 2Mac was written before the Christian era by Jews about one of their events which is very important to Judaism, and thus the weight of which is invoked by you as reason for its inclusion as Scripture, yet thus if anyone should included it as Scripture it should be them, yet they reject it, whereas John means nothing to Judaism. Might as well argue for the Megillat Antiochus being Scripture.

I see little warrant to continue to debate this book, which acceptance was not even required acceptance by RCs for most of her history, and records a festival that was nt Divinely ordained, and thus came to be largely ignored within a few decades after its origins and only was revived later, and which book teaches a late practice of paganism, and hope for those who died in battle due to mortal sin (spare the special pleading).