How The Reformation Changed The Church

In the book of Judges we read about another generation which arose, which knew neither the Lord nor what He had done (Judges 2:10). Today, it appears that a generation has arisen, which like Israel under the Judges, knows little of either the Lord nor of what He did during the time of the Protestant exodus and the struggles in the wilderness, which followed in the 16th and 17th century. Sometimes this is from a cowardly dislike of controversy and confrontation. But few people seem to understand either the evils from which the Reformation delivered us or the blessings which the Reformation won for us.

The Reformation delivered the Church from gross ignorance and spiritual darkness The church, before the Reformation, was a church without the Bible. And a church without a Bible is as useless as a lighthouse without light, a candlestick without a candle, or a motor vehicle without an engine. The priests and people knew scarcely anything about God’s Word or the way of salvation in Christ.

Bishop J.C. Ryle described the situation: “The immense majority of the clergy did little more than say masses and offer up pretended sacrifices, repeat Latin prayers and chant Latin hymns (which of course most of the people could not understand), hear confessions, grant absolutions, give extreme unction, and take money to get dead people out of purgatory.”

Bishop Latimer observed: “When the devil gets influence in a church, up go candles and down goes preaching.”

Quarterly sermons (that is, once every three months) were prescribed to the clergy, but not insisted upon. Latimer noted that while the mass was never left unsaid for a single Sunday, sermons might be omitted for 20 Sundays in succession. Indeed, to preach much was to incur the suspicion of being a heretic.

Bishop Hooper, who along with Bishop Latimer was burned alive at the stake under Queen Mary, did a survey in 1551 and found that out of 311 clergy in his Diocese, 168 were unable to repeat the Ten Commandments, 31 of those 168 could not even say in which part of the Scripture the Ten Commandments were to be found, 40 could not tell where the Lord’s Prayer was written, and 31 of the 40 did not even know who the author of the Lord’s Prayer was!

Bishop Ryle summarized the situation: “Before the Reformation was a religion without knowledge, without faith and without lively hope – a religion without justification, regeneration and sanctification – a religion without any clear views of Christ and the Holy Ghost. Except in rare instances, it was little better than an organized system of Mary worship, saint worship, image worship, relic worship, pilgrimages, alms giving, formalism, ceremonialism, processions, penances, absolutions, masses and blind obedience to the priests. It was a huge higgledy-piggledy of ignorance and idolatry, and serving an unknown God by deputy. The only practical result was that the priests took the people’s money and undertook to secure their salvation. And the people flattered themselves that the more they gave to the priests, the more sure they were to go to Heaven!”

The Reformation delivered the church from childish superstitions The Roman Catholic church, before the Reformation, taught its members to seek spiritual benefit from so-called relics of dead saints and to treat them with divine honor. Calvin’s “Inventory of Relics” and Hobart Seymour’s “Pilgrimage to Rome” catalog some of the ludicrous swindles which were perpetrated by the church of Rome. This included pieces of wood “of the true cross” enough to load a large ship, thorns professing to be part of the Saviour’s crown of thorns, enough to make a huge faggot, at least 14 nails said to have been used at the Crucifixion, four spearheads – each purporting to be the one which pierced our Lord’s side, at least three seamless coats of Christ, for which the soldiers cast lots, Saint James’s hand, bones of Mary Magdalene, toenails from Saint Edmund, some bread, purported to have been used by Christ at the Last Supper, a girdle of the Virgin Mary and milk from the Virgin Mary! The Royal Commissioners of Henry VIII examined a vial at the Abbey in Gloucestershire, which was said to contain the blood of Christ! The Commissioners found that it contained the blood of a duck.

There were literally thousands of profane and vile inventions, fabrications and deceptions, which Roman priests imposed on the people before the Reformation. They must have known that they were deceiving the people, yet they persisted in presenting these lies and requiring that the ignorant laity believe them. Sometimes the priests induced dying sinners to give vast tracts of lands to abbeys and monasteries, in order to atone for their bad lives. In one way or another, they were continually separating sinners from their money and accumulating property and wealth in the hands of the Roman church.

The power of the priests was practically despotic and was used for every purpose except the advancement of the Christian faith. It seemed that their primary object was power. To them confession had to be made. Without their absolution and extreme unction no professing Christian could be saved. Without their masses no soul could be redeemed from purgatory. In short, they were, to all intents and purposes, the mediators between Christ and man. To please and honor the Roman church was a devout Christian’s first duty. To injure them was the greatest of sins. One of the indulgences issued in 1498, with the authority of the Pope, claimed: “To absolve people from usury, theft, manslaughter, fornication and all crime whatsoever, except smiting the clergy and conspiring against the Pope!”

A starving man in a famine may be reduced to eating rats and rubbish, rather than die of hunger. Similarly, a conscience-stricken soul, deprived of God’s Word, should not be judged too harshly by us, if they struggled to find comfort in the most debasing superstition. However, we must never forget that it was from such superstitions which the Reformation delivered us.

The Reformation delivered the church from blatant immorality Before the Reformation, the lives of the clergy were simply scandalous. There were brothels in the Vatican. The Popes, Cardinals and Bishops openly consorted with prostitutes and engaged in the most debauched orgies. The local priests became notorious for gluttony, drunkenness and gambling. As Bishop Ryle pointed out: “To expect the huge roots of ignorance and superstition, which filled our land, to bear any but corrupt fruit, would be unreasonable and absurd.”

Contemporary art depicted friars as foxes preaching with the neck of a stolen goose peeping out of the hood behind; as wolves giving absolution, with the sheep partly concealed under their cloaks; or as apes sitting on a sick man’s bed with a crucifix in one hand and with the other hand in the suffering person’s pocket! Such public contempt in art reflects the scorn with which the clergy were held at the time.

Bishop Ryle pointed out: “But the blackest spot on the character of our pre-Reformation clergy in England is one of which it is painful to speak … their horrible contempt of the 7th Commandment … the consequences of shutting up herds of men and women in the prime of life, in monasteries and nunneries, were such that I will not defile my paper by dwelling upon them … if ever there was a plausible theory weighed in the balance and found utterly wanting, it is the favorite theory that celibacy and monasticism promote holiness … monasteries and nunneries were frequently sinks of iniquity.”

The report of the Royal Commissioners, under Henry VIII, declared: “That manifest sin, vicious, carnal and abominable living, is daily used and committed in abbeys, priories, and other religious houses of monks, cannons and nuns, and that albeit many continual visitations have been had, by the space of 200 years or more, for an honest and charitable reformation of such unthrifty, carnal and abominable living, yet that nevertheless, little or none amendment was hitherto had, but that their vicious living shamefully increased and augmented.”

It was observed that: “There is no surer recipe for promoting immorality than fullness of bread and abundance of idleness.” (Ezekiel 16:49) It is from such superstition, corruption, immorality, ignorance and idolatry that the Reformation freed the church.

The Reformation gave the church back the Bible In 1519, six men and a woman were burned at Coventry for teaching their children the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostle’s Creed in English. Nothing seems to have alarmed and enraged the Roman priesthood as much as the spread of Bibles in the local language. It was for the crime of translating the Bible into English that the Reformer, William Tyndale, was burned at the stake. Of all the aspects which combined to make up the Reformation, no other aspect received such bitter opposition as the translation and circulation of the Scriptures. The translation of the Bible struck a blow at the root of the whole Roman Catholic system. The Bible, as the only rule of faith and conduct, freely available in the local languages, was a threat to all the superstitions and abuses of the medieval Roman popery. With the Bible in every parish church, every thoughtful man soon saw that the religion of the priests had no basis in Holy Scripture.

The Reformation opened the road to the throne of Grace The way of salvation had become blocked up and made impassible by heaps of superstitious rubble. “He who desired to obtain forgiveness had to seek it through a jungle of priests, saints, Mary worship, masses, penances, confession, absolution and the like, so that there might as well have been no throne of Grace at all.” J.C. Ryle

The Reformers hacked their way through this huge jungle of papal obstruction and cleared the way for every heavy-laden sinner to go straight to the Lord Jesus Christ for remission of sins.

The Reformation restored Biblical simplicity to worship Before the Reformation, the laity were only present at church services as passive, ignorant spectators. The elaborate, theatrical presentations of the sacraments were a solemn farce because the ceremonies and prayers were in Latin. The laity could bring their bodies to the services, but their minds, understanding, reason and spirit could take no part at all. For this reason, the 24th Article of the Church of England declared: “It is a thing totally repugnant to the Word of God and the custom of the primitive church to have public prayer in the church or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people.”

The Reformation gave a Biblical understanding of the office of a minister Before the Reformation, the concept of the Christian ministry was sacerdotal. That is – it was understood that every clergyman was a sacrificing priest. The clergy were understood to hold the keys of Heaven and to be practically the mediators between God and man.

The Reformers brought the office of the clergy down to its Scriptural level. They stripped it entirely of any sacerdotal character. They cast out the words “sacrifice” and “altar”. They taught that the clergy were pastors, ambassadors, messengers, witnesses, evangelists, teachers and ministers of the Word and sacraments. The Reformers taught that the chief business of every Christian minister is to preach the Word and to be diligent in prayer and the reading of the Scriptures. The Reformers taught the immense superiority of the pulpit to the confessional. For this reason, where the altar used to be, the Lord’s table was placed with an open Bible, or a pulpit, showing the centrality of God’s Word in the worship of Protestant churches.

The Reformation restored a Biblical understanding of holiness Before the Reformation, it was believed that a monastic life and vows of celibacy were the only ways to escape sin and to attain sanctification. Multitudes of men and women poured into the monasteries and convents under the vain idea that this would please God and ensure their eternal salvation.

The Reformers struck at the root of this fallacy by establishing the great Scriptural principle that true religion was not to be found in retiring into convents and monasteries and fleeing from the difficulties of daily life, but in manfully facing up to our difficulties and doing our duty diligently - in every position to which God calls us. It is not by running away from the world, that we fulfill God’s call, but by courageously resisting the devil, the flesh and the world and overcoming them in daily life. That is how true holiness is to be exhibited. For this reason, the Reformers dissolved the monasteries and convents in their areas and freed the inmates to be reintegrated into normal life.

The Reformers also ordered that the Ten Commandments be set up in every parish church and taught to every child, and that our duty towards God and our neighbor be set forth in the Catechism. They insisted that you cannot become saints by shirking your duties in society.

A Heritage of Faith and Freedom We must continually thank God for the Reformation. It lit the flames of knowledge and freedom which we must ensure are never allowed to be extinguished or to grow dim. We need to continually remember that the Reformation was won for us by the blood of many tens of thousands of martyrs. It was not only by their preaching and praying, and writing and legislation, but by their sacrifices that our religious liberty, freedom of conscience and Christian heritage was won.

The Reformation found church members steeped in ignorance and left them in possession of knowledge. It found them without Bibles and left them with the Bible in every parish. It found them in darkness and left them in light. It found them bound in fear and left them enjoying the liberty and peace which only Christ can give. It found them strangers to the blood of Christ’s atonement, to faith, grace and holiness and left them with the key of all those blessings in their hands. It found them blind and left them with spiritual eyes to see. It found them slaves to superstition and set them free to serve Christ.

As Bishop Ryle declared: “Are we to return to a church which boasts that she is infallible and never changes – to a church which has never repented her pre-Reformation superstitions and abominations – to a church which has never confessed and abjured her countless corruptions? Are we to go back to gross ignorance of true religion? Shame on us, I say, if we entertain the idea for a moment! Let the Israelite return to Egypt, if he will. Let the prodigal go back to his husks among the swine. Let the dog return to his vomit. But let no Englishman with brains in his head, ever listen to the idea of exchanging Protestantism for Popery, or returning to the bondage of the church of Rome. No, indeed! … God forbid! The man who counsels such base apostasy and suicidal folly, must be judicially blind. The iron collar has been broken; let us not put it on again. The prison has been thrown open; let us not resume the yoke and return to our chains … Let us not go back to ignorance, superstition, priestcraft and immorality.”

If you have a Bible in your own language, and enjoy to read and study God’s Word, never forget that you owe that Bible to the Reformation. Brave men and women died that you could have the freedom to delight in God’s Word.

If you know the joy of sins forgiven and new life in Christ, if you are walking by faith and enjoying peace with God, never forget that you owe this priceless privilege to the Reformation.

If you enjoy Church services, Scripture choruses, Hymns, prayers and sermons in your own language, remember that for this you are also indebted to the Reformation.

If you appreciate the Biblical and practical sermons of your pastor, and his counsel, never forget that for this you are indebted to the Reformation. The Reformation is the source of many blessings. We need to ask if we are on the side of the Reformers, or of those who burned them and the Bible. “… Contend earnestly for the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3

Here you can see that Cronos and the Roman Catholic's have failed to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the WORD OF TRUTH:

The Apostle PAUL says to FOLLOW Paul, WHO FOLLOWS Christ Jesus. The RC follows Peter and the Pope...not Paul...

Paul was NOT sent to Baptize. 1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ send me NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel... In Acts 2:38 Peter reply is correct: for Peter here is primarily preaching to JEWS.

BUT Baptism is NOT an ordinance for salvation today. Even Peter understood that Paul was correct (see 2 Peter 3:15-17).

If the RC quote Scriptures like Mk 16:15-16 & Romans 6:4 & Col 2:12: 2 Peter 3:16 they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

They take these Scriptures, especially Romans 6:4 & Col 2:12, out of context to support baptism for today: Mk 16:15-16, Romans 6:4, Col 2:12 - do NOT support correctly rightly dividing the truth for baptism for today. Let me explain just one major mistake they make in Romans 6:4:

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism (SPIRITUAL baptism, NOT water) into death

Even Christ Jesus speaks of a SPIRITUAL baptism in the Gospels (see Gospel of John 1:33: the same is HE that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit [this is NOT water baptism]). Romans 6:4 is NOT water baptism: it is ONLY spiritual baptism BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit DOES NOT WATER baptize anyone in this age of the Grace of God!

Baptism was an Old Testament ordinance FOR THE Jews ONLY, evident since Jesus WAS SENT [first] to the Jews to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom: which was clearly taught in all the Old Testament Scriptures [which were given us us all BY GOD, not by man, not by RC].

Neither can the Roman Catholic's rightly understand Colossians 1:18: And HE [CHRIST] is the HEAD of the BODY, THE CHURCH: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things HE might have the preeminence.

Christ is to have ALL preeminence and glory and honor, God does not share HIS not preeminence and glory with some religious organization that fails to follow and understand the ministry of PAUL!

CRONOS post:

so Paul was sent to preach and others were sent to baptise -- as the Bible says, we each have our own gifts.

Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

Mk 16:15-16 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Col 2:12. having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. We believe we are united with Christ by baptism and nourished by the Eucharist.

Our Lord voluntarily submitted himself to the baptism of St. John, intended for sinners, in order to "fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15) The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5) 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament (Mark 16:16). The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

From the catechism

You can't argue that scripture explicitly says Repent and be baptised and "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." --> again, a very clear statement, just like that of the Eucharist.

Believe it or not in reference to those verses, I had one Catholic who thought Jesus would be drinking His own Blood with us in Heaven!

Oh, I believe it. Absolutely.

They don't realize that if Jesus had drunk blood, it would have made Him unclean, rendering Him incapable of being the perfect sinless sacrifice fulfilling the righteous requirements of the Law.

Likewise, if He had demanded that the twelve break the Law during the Last Supper.

Not to mention that Peter told God three times during the vision on the roof episode in Acts that he had never eaten anything unclean. Either Peter never did, or he lied to God.

Obviously Peter understood the requirements of the Law and would not have drank if he thought Jesus meant it was actual blood considering his continual tendency to wimp out when around Jews as far as following the Law.

Claiming that the cup was really Jesus' blood fails on so many levels, and yet no matter what the evidence provided from Scripture, Catholics will deny it and back their church with their dying breath.

Not to be contentious here but I think you switched mid stream. Look at your first comment.

[roamer_1:] My contention is that the context is inferred in the Scripture - not ordained. IOW, there is no place where we are commanded to baptize children

Then look at your justification for you position.

[roamer_1:] but that may well mean (probably does mean) those in the house capable of taking the decision.

You can’t do one thing in the first instance then use what you discredited in your second.

I don't understand the conflict you see... My position is that one cannot baptize by proxy - Baptism must be partaken personally, and inherent in that, one must be able to knowingly participate.

The efficacy of baptism is not in the water, or the incantation - the effective "circumcision without hands" takes place in the act - the participation - and is defined, IMHO, by inward acceptance.

Therefore, it can have no effect on one who is not knowingly participant, nor can it be accomplished by proxy. Ergo, an infant cannot be baptized.

With that in mind, when the Bible speaks of a man and his whole house being baptized, the implication cannot be understood to mean infants too, but only those members of the house who are sentient, capable of reason, and thereby, capable of taking the decision - IOW adults...

Does that explain it better?

Note: One can argue the point of reason, the age of reckoning, as it were, but there is no one I know of that would determine an infant capable of such things.

Salvation doesn’t come from baptism in either instance. The salvation is from Jesus perfect sacrifice.

Agreed - Yet the passage refers to being saved:

[Cynical Bear:] don’t mean to stick my nose in here but when the jailor asked “what must I do to be saved”, the answer was “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved-and your house”.

... And that is the defense for infant baptism...

Yet we all know families who have fallen away members, who had been baptized as infants, raised in YHWH in the home, yet are decidedly lawless, and without apparent grace...

And conversely, many of those will find Christ later in life, in an experience of repentance...

Many, not ALL.

So it occurs to me that regardless of any other thing, salvation does not, cannot occur severally (barring some unknown mystery of YHWH), but each one in his own time, wherein, the general rule would presumably apply: Repent, be Baptized, Receive the Spirit.

Otherwise, one must be of the position that those who are recalcitrant, yet baptized into Christ in infancy, will receive a free pass.

Baptism is the symbol of the being washed by His blood. The salvation of children is tied to the covering of the parent.

That is presumed, not defined - And that is the point.

There is nothing in the words of Jesus that tells us the Gospel is a comprehensive set of laws, legal ordinances and commandments.

True. Because the New Covenant refers to the Old:

1Jn 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. And everyone who loves Him who begets also loves him who has been born of Him.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, whenever we love God and keep His commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome.

(e-Sword: MKJV)

Discussions and debates that attempt to leverage single passages or Books of the Bible and ignore their relationship to the Synoptic Gospels and the Beatitudes are both vain and empty.

Precisely so - But rather, any interpretation that does not consider the WHOLE Word of YHWH presumes to make YHWH a liar.

LOL! i come home from work, turn on my computer and see you didn’t answer either of my questions, but instead have one more for me.
are you interested in a dialogue or is this a cross-examination?
i think i already answered 3 or 4 questions from you and you didn’t show me the same courtesy by answering just two of mine.
don’t misunderstand, we both know why you didn’t answer them.
to those following this, my two questions were something to the effect,
1. tell me what group of believers that existed in every century from the 1st to the 16th who believed that water baptism ( i feel the need to add “water” although it is redundant, since Ephesians teaches there is only one baptism ) was not for the remission of sins, but merely ceremonial done as a first act of obedience.
2. tell me where in the Bible anyone was ever told to be baptized as an act of obedience or as a public display of what has already happened to them.

here are my answers, since i don’t think i will be getting any if form holds:
1. there are none, the Church has always taught what they received from the Apostles, namely baptism is for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.
2. there are no Bible passages that teach this.

unfortunately, many have been taught this 16th century tradition of men, but it was unknown to the Apostles and their successors.

you are up.

Not a big deal. Was just pointing to the difference.

Yah, I get it - no offense taken...

I wasn’t contending with your view of baptism. I really have no firm view one way or another as I don’t believe it matters to salvation.

Nor do I believe it matters wrt salvation. Yet we are commanded (no uncertain terms) to perform it.

In the first instance you dismissed because it was specificaaly ordained and the second supported your claim by the phrase “may well mean” so wasn’t specifically ordained either.

Accepted. But what I infer is in line with the general meaning of Baptism in the whole of the Scriptures, which was my point.

IOW, The rule (what the Bible DOES declare) of baptism, loosely defined, is: repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit.

The symbolism around baptism reinforces that: The submersion is the old man dying, and the raising up is the new man, resurrected in Christ.

It is my opinion that infant baptism raises an exception to that rule, and a fault, in that the infant cannot participate knowingly, so there is no "old man dying"... so neither can there be a new man raised up in Christ.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.