Luther , Calvin , Zwingli and the reformation.....

I recently read a book in swedish about the reformation and about Luther , Calvin and so on, but not from a "reformed" perspective but from the anabaptist perspective. And i find it horrifying what i read. This article i found have "some" of the things i read about in it. Not to take away any of the good that these men might have done for us, but should we overlook the horrifying things they did?

I find these men, the anabaptist from 1500 to be very godly people, they loved Christ and their Christcentered belif is really wonderful, yet the were slaughtered and martyred and hunted like dogs and beaten to death by these "reformers"

yet i have found very litte people know or care about this.

Anyway, here is a short critical article. I will study this more closely.

Christian

------------------------

When I became a member of an Evangelical Protestant church, I began to read a lot about the Leaders of the Reformation. However as I read about their lives, I began to grow more and more concerned with what I read. I began to have doubts about whether they could truly be considered Saintly or Holy men.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Quite simply because a person's inner life and closeness to God should necessarily be reflected in the way they live their outward life. The Reformers were men who made great claims. They claimed to be led by God to challenge and even to tear down the existing structure of the Church. They claimed the duty to expose a hypocrisy and falsehood at the very heart of the Church of God. They claimed to be chosen leaders, authorised to establish new, cleansed and reformed churches. Men who were truly being used by God for such a great work must surely display a holiness of the highest standard?

This principle was set out by Jesus himself when advising how to test the genuineness of those who claim teaching authority:

"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit....Thus by their fruit you will recognise them." Matthew 7: v!8 and 20.

Surely then the Reformers should have led lives of exemplary holiness - certainly comparable to those of people like St Francis, Mother Theresa, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and other Christians who claimed far less for themselves.

BUT AREN'T YOU SETTING TOO HIGH A STANDARD?
MANY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WERE NOT EXACTLY MODELS OF HOLINESS THEMSELVES, WERE THEY?

No they weren't. But every human institution is imperfect and attracts corrupt people. People enter churches of all denominations for the wrong reasons, seeking power, influence and worldly success more than they seek to serve God. Yet for every corrupt Catholic there were many who lived good and holy lives.

The leaders of the Reformation, however, were not men who joined an existing institution for venial reasons. They were men who claimed express authority from God to destroy the old church and found a new church in its place. Surely it is not unjust to expect from such men lives of outstanding and exemplary holiness?

Yet is this what we find? Let us look at the facts.

1. MARTIN LUTHER

Luther was well known for his hot temper, pride and violent language, rather than for his saintliness and humility. He called the Pope the "Antichrist" and even heaped abuse on fellow-reformers like Zwingli and Bucer who disagreed with him. He encouraged the German Princes to seize church property in return for protection for the Reformation. Along with others, he issued a licence permitting the Landgrave of Hesse to keep 2 wives simultaneously. However worse was to come. His language grew in violence:

"If we punish thieves with the gallows . . . why do we not still more attack with every kind of weapon . . . these Cardinals, these Popes, and that whole abomination of the Romish Sodom . . . why do we not wash our hands in their blood?"

PEASANTS REVOLT

Inspired by the writings of Luther and others, which declared the Freedom of the Christian Man, and led by Thomas Muntzer, an ex-pupil of Luther's, German peasants demanded to be freed from Serfdom, joining in the Great Peasants Revolt. They hoped for Luther's support. But Luther owed his protection and high position to the German aristocrats. So instead, in a pamphlet entitled Against the Murderous Peasants, Luther told the princes and the nobility that it was right and lawful to slay at the first opportunity a rebellious person, "just as one must slay a mad dog."
He added:
\tLet all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel... For we are come upon such strange times that a prince may more easily win heaven by the shedding of blood than others by prayers.

Urged on by their spiritual leader, the nobles and their armies suppressed the revolts with great savagery. Molten pitch and sulphur were poured upon the peasants. Some had their eyes gouged out. The bodies of 5,000 retreating peasants were hung from trees across the countryside. For the leaders of the rebels a special form of torture was devised where their flesh was torn off with red-hot pincers. In all more than 100,000 peasants were slain.

Embittered with Luther, the German peasants named him Dr Lugner, or "Dr Liar" in English. The advance of Lutheranism in Germany stopped.

GERMAN JEWS

Luther was no less inflamatory with regard to the Jews, as seen in the following excerpts from his pamphlet: The Jews and Their Lies, (1543):

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honour of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians...

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them...

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home

I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them."

The Jews were soon expelled from Luther's native Saxony.

So just how saintly was this first and greatest Reformer?

2. ULRICH ZWINGLI

Born at Wildhaus in Switzerland on the 1st of January, 1484, Zwingli came from a prominent middle class family. Chosen as People's Priest in Zurich, he declared Zwingliin 1522 that the fasting provisions for Lent were mere human commands, not in harmony with the Bible - the sole source of faith. In1524, indulgences and pilgrimages were abolished, the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction rejected, and all pictures, statues, relics, altars, and organs were torn out of the churches.

Yet at the same time Zwingli was known to be immoral sexually. One historian writes: "He did not let his sacerdotal vows exclude him from the pleasures of the flesh; he had some affairs with generous women." Zwingli soon renounced his vows of celibacy living with Anna Reinhard for some years before finally marrying her..

Like Luther, with whom he quarreled, Zwingli was a user of intemperate language, and refused to come to any compromise with fellow-reformers on the matter of the Eucharist. Within Zurich Catholicism was forbidden, but particular hatred was reserved for Anabaptists. From 1525 Zwingli persecuted them mercilessly with imprisonment, torture, banishment and death. The Anabaptist leader, Felix Manz, was drowned. Under Zwingli's influence, penalties of drowning, burning or beheading were decreed by the Council.

'It is our will,' they proclaimed, 'that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared."

To compel the unwilling neighbouring Catholic cantons to accept his new doctrines, Zwingli urged open war, and drew up a plan of campaign to conquer the mountain cantons and impose his teachings by force. After provoking a conflict by cutting off food supplies to the Catholic mountain cantons, Zwingli marched out of Zurich with an army. His protestant troops met the catholics in battle at Kappel on the 11th October 1531. However Zwingli's plan for expansion ended when he was killed in the battle.

3. JOHN CALVIN

Calvin, known for his harsh theology (see Free Will or Predestination), became the leading Reformer of Geneva, where he established a virtual theocracy which ruled every aspect of peoples' lives.In the constitution he drew up for the city, the death penalty was laid down for blasphemy, heresy and witchcraft.

It did not take long for this to be applied. Within a few years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile took place in Geneva. Two examples:

1. James Gruet, was alleged to have posted a note which implied that Calvin should leave the city:

He was at once arrested and a house to house search made for his accomplices. This method failed to reveal anything except that Gruet had written on one of Calvin's tracts the words 'all rubbish.' The judges put him to the rack twice a day, morning and evening, for a whole month . . . He was sentenced to death for blasphemy and beheaded on July 26, 1547.

2. The Spanish Reformer Servetus had dared to criticize Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and began an angry correspondence with him. Calvin promised: "If he comes here and I have any authority, I will never let him leave the place alive."

Servetus visited Geneva on 13 August, 1553. The next day Calvin, who had seen him in church, had his critic arrested. Calvin drew up forty articles of charges concerning the nature of God, infant baptism, and the attacks on his own teaching. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote: "I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death"

On October 26, the Council ordered that he be burned alive on the following day.

Servetus took half an hour to die. Calvin noted: "'He showed the dumb stupidity of a beast . . . He went on bellowing . . . in the Spanish fashion: "Misericordias!" . .

In1554 Calvin wrote the treatise Against the Errors of Servetus, in which he tried to justify the execution: "Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

The modern-day Congregational, Prebyterian, Reformed, Baptist and many of the Charismatic churches, all look to this same Calvin as their founding spiritual authority.

4. THOMAS CROMWELL

The Reformation in England was brought about largely by state power. This was undertaken at the instigation of King Henry Vlll. The story of Henry's marriages and of his many cruelties is well-known. Yet it has been argued that Henry was not a Reformer at all - more a man greedy for a new wife and to get his hands on the wealth of the Church.

So let us look at some of the other key figures of the English Reformation, and see whether they were of a different stripe.

Cromwell as Earl of EssexIt often surprises people that the first leader of the Church of England under Henry was not Archbishop Cranmer, but Thomas Cromwell - who was made the king's Vicar-General, with direct authority over the Church and its Bishops. Cromwell was a Reformer, and pushed through the main religious changes of the 1530s - the royal supremacy, the printing of the English Bible, the closing of the monasteries, the destruction of shrines and images, and the restriction of Holy Days.

Cromwell's methods however, were anything but holy. He was a genius of sorts, helping to construct a tightly-controlled police-state, the type of which any 20th Century dictator would have been proud. Cromwell erected a system built on fear, torture and death. Criticising the king, his divorce, or failing to agree that Henry was head of the church, now became high treason - to be punished by disembowelment whilst still alive, hanging and quartering. In the end, even failing to denounce anyone else who criticised these things became treason. Guilty verdicts were ensured by the introduction of the "Double Grand Jury" which made the jury trying a case liable to face trial themselves by a second jury if they came up with the wrong verdict. Acts of Attainder, allowing the execution of victims without any trial whatsoever, were also introduced. All these things were needed to enforce the Reformation in England.

Churches, shrines and abbeys were plundered for funds to build Henry's palaces and fortiffications. priceless ancient books and works of art were torn apart for their value in gold and gems.

Victims excuted by Cromwell included Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, as well as countless lesser-ranked people such as the Carthusian Monks, Observant Friars and any who dared to protest at the break with Rome. All of these suffered hanging, disembowelment and quartering. Abbots who refused to surrender their monasteries also fell victim:

Letter of Richard Pollard to Thomas Cromwell, November 16, 1539

Pleaseth it your Lordship to be advertised that..[On November 15] the late abbot of Glastonbury went from Wells to Glastonbury, and there was drawn through the town upon a hurdle to the hill called the Torre, where he was put to execution; …Afore his execution [he] was examined upon divers articles and interrogatories to him ministered by me, but he could accuse no man of himself of any offence against the king's highness, nor would he confess no more gold nor silver nor any other thing more than he did before your Lordship in the Tower…I suppose it will be near Christmas before I shall have surveyed the lands at Glastonbury, and take the audit there….

Cromwell personally gained many of the monastic lands including all the lands of Lewes Priory, and the Abbeys of Colchester, St Osith and Launde.
Jealousies led to him being accused of treason, and he was executed without trial under his own laws in 1540.

5. THOMAS CRANMER

If Henry and Cromwell were seen as the dark side of the Reformation, then surely the martyr Archbishop, Cranmer, who wrote the fine words of the English Prayer Book, must show its other face?

Thomas CranmerYet while Cranmer's acts cannot compare with the horrors his two contemporaries performed, the Archbishop's own story is far from edifying.

He came to power with the Boleyns, writing an opinion in favour of the King's divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon. For a time he was the Boleyn family chaplain. With Anne Boleyn's patronage, he became the first protestant Archbishop of Canterbury. Among his first acts was to pronounce the king's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and then marry Henry to Anne Boleyn. At this time, despite his vows of celibacy, he kept a wife in secret, who he had smuggled into the country from Germany.

As Archbishop, Cranmer presided over the executions of both Catholics and Protestant extremists. He was quite happy to condemn Protestants to the stake even though they held views similar to those that he himself revealed when it was safe to do so.

When Anne fell from favour with King Henry, Cranmer turned against his former patroness. Three years after he had married Anne to Henry, and days before her execution, he pronounced that the marriage had been invalid from the start. No reason was given. However this enabled Anne's daughter to be removed from the succession, clearing the way for Jane Seymour's marriage to the king - which Cranmer performed.

This was the period when the monasteries and friaries were being ransacked and destroyed. Many were killed in this process. On 8 April, 1538, Friar Forrest was taken to Lambeth, where, before Cranmer, he was required to state that King Henry was Head of the Church. This, however, he firmly refused to do. Forrest was sentenced to death, and on the 22nd of May he was taken to Smithfield and burned.

In 1540 when the king moved in a less protestant direction after Cromwell's fall, Cranmer was quite happy to burn protestant protesters as well. However when the archbishop feared that King Henry's fifth wife, 20 year-old Katherine Howard, might lead him in a more catholic direction, he conspired to bring about her downfall. Learning rumours of Katherine's unchastity before her marriage, Cranmer quickly brought these to the attention of the king. The Queen was arrested at once, and Cranmer was put in charge of the investigation. He oversaw the torture of the accused men and soon he had more than enough material to present a case against Katherine. She and many others were sent to the block.

On Henry's death, Cranmer was placed on the Council of Regency for the boy king, Edward VI. Allying himself with Suffolk, and "Lord Protector" Somerset, Cranmer was free to come out in his true Protestant colours. The Latin Mass was abolished - replaced by Cranmer's own sonorously-worded Book of Common Prayer - and another plundering of the Church began. However when Suffolk fell in a coup to John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, Cranmer again turned his coat and signed his former ally's death warrant.

The churches, guilds and chantry chapels were now stripped of their furnishings, and plate, silver and gold - much of which ended up in Dudley's hands. Priceless books and missals were burnt in great bonfires, little escaped. A final betrayal occurred when the boy King Edward came near to death. Despite being first signatory to King Henry's will, guaranteeing the succession of the princesses Mary and Elizabeth, Cranmer again broke his oath and backed the attempt to place Jane Grey on the throne. It was for this act of treason as much as for his religious views that he was condemned to death under Queen Mary. In fact Cranmer recanted his protestantism when he thought this would save his life, but un-recanted when told he would still be burned.

6. HUGH LATIMER

LatimerLatimer was a close associate of Cranmer, and rose to the rank of Bishop of London under King Henry. He was burnt with Cranmer under Queen Mary. But was even he the holy and innocent man of legend?

Once again when we look beyond the official gloss, we find this man that some have called a "saintly martyr" approving the burning of Anabaptists and obstinate Franciscans under Henry VIII.

Latimer was involved in the case of John Forrest, one of the friars who denied the Royal Supremacy over the Church. Far from feeling any respect for the friar's stand, he wrote to Cranmer that the condemned prisoner was too well treated in Newgate prison, and that he, Latimer, would have to "play the fool" overseeing the friar's execution. To add to the ironic humour of this public spectacle, the friar was to be burnt over a bonfire of religious statuary. Forrest was chained across a large holy statue which had been brought from the church of Llanderfel in Wales, and burned alive. Latimer expressed no remorse.

In the 1548, under King Edward, Latimer was again involved in heresy trials and condemnations. He joined Cranmer in justifying the execution of Lord Seymour after the Dudley coup. In April 1549 Latimer joined Ridley in condeming the anabaptist Joan Bocher, better known as Joan of Kent, to death by burning. Young King Edward at first refused to sign the death warrant, but Cranmer pursuaded him to do so.

So when Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer were burned under Queen Mary, they were following a road along which they had sent many others before them.

7. JOHN KNOX

Founder of the Presbyterian and Established Church of Scotland.

John KnoxBorn at Haddington, Scotland, in 1513; he was a priest and went to Rome before becoming a follower of Calvin. He spent time in Geneva, which he considered "The most perfect school of Christ that ever was on earth since the days of the Apostles."

Returning to Scotland in the 1540s, he became involved in a plot to murder Cardinal Beaton at St Andrews. The murder took place on 29th May 1546. The assassination was approved and applauded by Knox, who describes the deed with a gleeful and mocking levity. He remained with Beaton's murderers in the castle of St. Andrews, which they held for some months until a large French fleet forced their surrender. Knox was imprisoned for nineteen months on board a French galley. In other writings he reiterated his views that every Christian man (i.e. Protestant) had a right to slaughter every idolater (i.e. Catholic), if he got an opportunity.

In 1560, following the withdrawal of French troops from Scotland, Knox returned to lead a campaign of reform by riot, moving from town to town accompanied by the Protestant lords and urging his supporters to destroy all "Popish" images in churches and drive out Catholic clergy, monks, nuns and friars. The Catholic population were intimidated whilst most of the country's monasteries and cathedrals were razed to the ground. Finally reaching Edinburgh, an unofficial "parliament" was called which banned Catholicism on pain of death.

Knox feared the return of Catholic Queen Mary, despite her declared policy of religious toleration, and became her sworn enemy.

In March 1564, aged 51, he married Margaret Stewart, a girl of sixteen.

When, on the 9th March 1566, Queen Mary's Italian counsellor, Rizzio was brutally stabbed to death in a conspiracy by Protestant Lords before the pregnant queen's very eyes, Knox stated that "..the act was most just and worthy of all praise."

"Foolish Scotland", the founder of the Presbyterian church said when the plotters failed to kill Mary, "hath disobeyed God by sparing the queen",

* * *

From the above it can be seen that, almost without exception, the Leaders of the Reformation, had an appalling record. They quite simply failed to live anything that could reasonably be called an exemplary Christian life.

SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THEIR TEACHING, AND THEIR CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT?

[url=http://www.geocities.com/aprofaith/leaders.htm]Source : Reformation Leaders[/url]

From the above it can be seen that, almost without exception, the Leaders of the Reformation, had an appalling record. They quite simply failed to live anything that could reasonably be called an exemplary Christian life.

By no means do I condone such actions, but at the same time it has to be realized that these men lived in a world where the separation of church and state simply didn't exist. Compared to the papacy, the reformers didn't know better. Hurt people have an unpleasant tendancy of hurting others.

I've been doing lot of thinking, and after much contemplation have actually become more and more supportive of the kind of government where church, state and economy are kept seperate. In a government where they are combined (whether it be communism, monarchy or dictatorship), there's always consistantly been the probability of corruption in one area overwhelming the whole.

SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THEIR TEACHING, AND THEIR CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT?

The same could be said of the atrocities committed by Cathlocism through the ages. Crusades, Inquisitions, the rape and molestation of innocent children.

I don't think any of the reformers actually did make the claim of their teachings being spirit inspired, such a claim would immediately contradict the reformed teaching of [i]sola scriptura[/i]. But the Bible itself is God's inspired, infallible and innerant word. I've met many people that claim the distinction of "calvinist" without ever having read a single page of Calvin's literature; they just look at T.U.L.I.P., open up the Bible, and simply see it right there.

[i]That the difference of the opinions of those, who in their general scheme of divinity agree with these two noted men, Calvin, and Arminius, is a thing there is often occasion to speak of, is what the practice of the latter, itself confesses; who are often, in their discourses and writings, taking notice of the supposed absurd and pernicious opinions of the former sort…. Nevertheless, at first I had thoughts of carefully avoiding the use of the appellation “Arminian” in this treatise. But I soon found I should be put to great difficulty by it; and that my discourse would be so encumbered with an often repeated circumlocution, instead of a name, which would express the thing intended, as well and better, that I altered my purpose. And therefore I must ask the excuse of such as are apt to be offended with things of this nature, that I have so freely used the term “Arminian” in the following discourse. I profess it to be without any design, to stigmatize persons of any sort with a name of reproach, or at all to make them appear more odious. If when I had occasion to speak of those divines who are commonly called by this name, I had, instead of styling them Arminians, called them “these men,” as Dr. Whitby does Calvinistic divines; it probably would not have been taken any better, or thought to show a better temper, or more good manners. I have done as I would be done by, in this matter. However the term “Calvinist” is in these days, among most, a term of greater reproach than the term “Arminian”; yet I should not take it at all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction’s sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot justly be charged with believing in everything just as he taught."[/i] [b]- Jonathan Edwards[/b]

Brother Christian, you are rising very important subject that I am interested in more and more. About the anabaptists. And as I am reading more, it seems like these men were the [i]real[/i] testimony of our Lord Jesus these past centuries. By the grace of God I want to continue to study this subject.

intrcssr83 wrote:
By no means do I condone such actions, but at the same time it has to be realized that these men lived in a world where the separation of church and state simply didn't exist. Compared to the papacy, the reformers didn't know better. Hurt people have an unpleasant tendancy of hurting others.

What a statement intrcssr83! This is not true, they had living examples in the anabaptists! They were exposed with the scriptures and their lives.

I've met many people that claim the distinction of "calvinist" without ever having read a single page of Calvin's literature; they just look at T.U.L.I.P., open up the Bible, and simply see it right there.

Please brother, this thread is not about calvinistic doctrine, so no need to push it again. We have had hundreds threads about calvinism.

Greetings all.

Dear friends, is it God's will for us to dig up the sins of men?

Did not the Lord Jesus say let the dead bury the dead?

And if they are dead should we garnish their tombs?

Or live among the tombs as the man possesed of the legion?

Why expose the sins of others if you do not want God to expose all of yours?

Greetings to you also brother Chris.

Brother, I'm really surprised the way you treat these important historical subject as a 'digging up sins of men'. I believe these are important because they contain an important lesson for us living in these last days. Especially is important the life and example of the anabaptists that they gave to the religious and the way how they went through the persecution, not from the world, but from the church! From particular leaders.

Brother, when the Lord Jesus said:

[b]Remember Lot's wife. [/b]

Was this digging the sin of the Lot's wife?

Or many others places when the Lord said 'remember' the history, 'remember' what happened.

Also Paul in 1 Cor. 10:1-11 did he want to expose the sins of the 'idolaters' and others or he had something much more important to address the church. He wrote this in [b]verse 6[/b] and [b]11[/b].

I remember this quote, 'One thing we learn from history, is that we don't learn from history'.

Hi brother Kire,

The Lord Jesus said,

[b][color=660000] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. [/color][/b]

- John 12:49(KJV)

Paul wrote that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

How about you? Did God tell you or anyone else to dig up these mens sins?

Also, some of these leaders formed the theology and doctrines and the christianity of [b]millions[/b] christians, churches, countless denominations ahead of their time. How we should not to look at the fruits of these men? We must do that.

When I am reading a book or hearing a sermon, I am not interested in first time what the wrote, but I want to read or see their fruits, and then I am sitting to read the book.

How about you? Did God tell you or anyone else to dig up these mens sins?

Brother Chris, these men 'sins' were and are not hidden i.e. made in secret and that we should now expose them. Their letters and debates are public. These men thought that these are not sins, but a right theology, doing a God service. And knowingly or not knowingly, they traced the path of the a big part of the todays christianity.

Brother Kire,

"Brother Chris, these men 'sins' were and are not hidden i.e. made in secret and that we should now expose them."

Who told [b]you[/b] to bring them [b]here[/b]?

But if you want to defend your right to dump garbage in the laps of God's people, I will not stop you.

ChrisJD wrote:
But if you want to defend your right to dump garbage in the laps of God's people, I will not stop you.

No brother, we don't fight for any rights, we lost our rights on the cross, but surely I will not write on this subject here on this thread, because you considering this as a dumping garbage, I am not considering it as so. But because you are my brother, I will leave it as it is.

Grace and peace from our Lord may be with you, you are a precious brother.

Kire

Dear brother Kire,

Thank you for the grace you have shown me in this.

And if I have been wrong minded about this may God show it to me also and forgive me for any wrong. And please forgive me for any wrong to you.

With a holy kiss in the Lord.

It was not my intention of "digging up " old sins in such a way, I just dident know these things had been done. But i recently read this book and it really effected me. To me it seems like Luther and others freed us from catholicism, but then when they them self got the power did the same thing.

As one brother said, they where different times and so on, its true, but i read detailed letter exchanges between these men and others, i have read debates and trial and court documents translated to Swedish. And it was to me a shock to read many many things that are unbelievable.

To me it is a mystery for a born again believer to say such things and act them out. And to say they dident know better is not true, there where men who stood up and said what scripture says to these men, its recorded and documented very well for those who are interested.

So the "news" to me about all these things made me as some say look at everything, What i mean is there are many to day who can say this preacher or that ministry is false and not biblical. False prophets and so on. And it just was a shock to me to see that some people who have these men as "heroes of faith" maybe dont know what was going on back then? because i dident. Now i have read Luther, I have been blessed by Luther,Calvin and many of the reformers. But some of the things i read what they said and done is unbelievable.

to expose sins of others? i dont know.... maybe i did wrong, but i think to systematically murder and persecute people is no small thing. But on the other hand God did not tell me to expose these mens sins and faults here. So maybe i did wrong in that. I was effected by this and somewhat shocked.

I have many sins of my own, maybe shouldent point to others, living or dead.

I just feel as my foundations where shaked and wanted to go deeper to find out more, bad chooise .

forgive me brother if i posted something that was not good for you or the body of Christ.

your brother Christian

Brother Chris, I just wanted to thank you for your heart.

Sister Annie, thank you for the link of the book 'EVEN UNTO DEATH'.

Hi brother Christian (hmmhmm)

I've read the article with interest and wanted to know the source of the claims. If this article is true then Foxe's book of martyrs is distorting the truth.
Though I believe some things written to be true such as Luthers sayings on Jews, I wanted to see the background of the other things written in the article and went to the website it came from. I did'nt find sources for the claims but I did find this:

9. Only one Church was founded on the Apostles, remains in communion with the See of Peter, maintains Apostolic Succession, and has fulfilled the warrant of Scripture by preaching the SAME DOCTRINE to ALL GENERATIONS, for 2,000 years from Pentecost to the Present. The CATHOLIC CHURCH.

It's a Catholic website..

Just thougt I should share this for perspective on where the article comes from.

Jeppe

HE_Reigns,

You said,

"I saw it more as a Memorial to the Saints that were killed."

What are you referring to here?

Are you refering to the accusations that were made against Luther, Knox and Calvin here?

forgive me...if i posted something that was not good for...the body of Christ.

There are articles, books and documents that work for booth sides. I have read articles that list “shocking” things that were done by Reformers and Anabaptists as well. It would seem that many attack the Reformers or the Anabaptists when they have a problem with their theologies and doctrines. This mud slinging is almost as old as the A and C debate itself.

As for your posting it….I say…why not. I mean we should all feel welcome to post and investigate these events that shaped our Christian heritage. I find much of it rather interesting. The problem with history is that it can easily be twisted and has often been tainted. I’m a historian. I may write an article that has over a hundred footnotes and uses over thirty or forty independent sources. After reading an article people say things like, “I never knew that.” I usually reply, “You still don’t. You only know what I wanted you to know.”

Did not the Lord Jesus say let the dead bury the dead?

Dear friends, is it God's will for us to dig up the sins of men?

Appreciate these exhortations, brother ChrisJD!

Brother Christian, I'm surprised to see your posting of all these "sins" about Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, knowing you a bit, I'm almost sure you posted this out of good intension. Lest this turns into a deja vu of the battle for Finney.

I can't magine if we all go on posting such amongst our own these days, men like Spurgeon, Pink, Wesley, Owen, Ravenhill, Wilkerson,K Daniel, Tozer....., I'm sure if we dig deep enough, we can find some in them too. Have we forgotten how Scripture describes us in a state out of Christ, [b]all[/b] of us,.. as filthy rags, worms, dust, beasts...

Do we not kill others, or each other by our hatred sometimes, do we not throw temper at times, if not in our soul...do our sins have no affects on others...do our words have no bearings on our families and friends...are we not just as influential as Luther, Calvin and Swingli on a daily basis in Christ...when we sin..do we not cause others to stumble....at least, what little 'good' in these few sinful men (Calvin, Luther and Swingli) helped my learning a great deal, and I am very thankful for them. Even the temper of Luther, was used to give me a bit of courage and comfort when I had to stand against the corrupt church I used to attend.

Before brother Christian's findings, I'm already fully aware of their (edited)so-called "sins" (I sound so arrogant just to write like this), but aren't we all the same in God's sight without the Blood? Besides, it's only foolishness for any of God's children to wholeheartedly follow any man/men aside from Christ, to live by any books aside from the Holy Writ, or to learn any doctrines aside from the Word.

What edifications can one bring to expose the sins of these dead old saints (some of which might just be propaganda, and I do consider them fellow saints in Christ).As ChrisJD pointed out, they are dead. We are living in trouble time enough where we are surrounded by the living enemies of Christ. If anything I learned from the Finney Thread awhile ago, I learned to just drop it. As a teacher, the Holy Spirit is better and bigger than all of them put together throughout all ages.

Well, I'm not here to defend these men really, but I do want to be a small witness for how the Lord used some of these men's works to broaden my learning in the past. I'd just like to count the blessings because of their works, and let God worry about their offences, had they neglected to repent.

"Grace alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, Faith alone, God's Glory alone"

mamaluk

edit: posted after reading brother Christian's last post, all good!

"There are articles, books and documents that work for booth sides. I have read articles that list “shocking” things that were done by Reformers and Anabaptists as well. It would seem that many attack the Reformers or the Anabaptists when they have a problem with their theologies and doctrines. This mud slinging is almost as old as the A and C debate itself."

"Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor: I am the LORD."

- Leviticus 19:16(KJV)

The following is taken from John Gill's exposition of the Entire Bible. The entry is from Leviticus 19:16,

Lev 19:16 - Thou shall not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people,.... The word used signifies a merchant, and particularly one that deals in drugs and spices, and especially a peddler in those things, that goes about from place to place to sell them; and such having an opportunity and making use of it to carry stories of others, and report them to their disadvantage, hence it came to be used for one that carries tales from house to house, in order to curry favour for himself, and to the injury of others; and such a man is a detestable person, and ought not to be encouraged, see 1Ti_5:13,

neither shall thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; either by bearing a false testimony, whereby his blood is in danger of being shed when innocent; or by being silent, and not hearing a testimony for him, whereby the shedding of his innocent blood might have been prevented; either way may be interpreted standing against it: the Jewish writers think, that a man by this law, is bound to do all he can to preserve the life of his neighbour, when it is by any means in danger, by drowning, or by thieves and wild beasts, so Jarchi:

I am the Lord; the just and righteous One, who will resent and punish for all unjust proceedings in courts of judicature, secret tale bearing, doing any injury to another, or not preventing it when in the power of his hands.

Hmmm,
What is the source of this 'interesting' article? Please provide links.
I also noticed no one seems interested in the fact that this article was probably written from a roman catholic perspective.

Be careful what you consider 'the truth' worthy of 'further study and discussion'

Just because something appears old and well written is not enough reason to believe it without finding out its source.

To the OP,
What is the source of this 'interesting' article?

I'm surprised no one took Jeppe up on the claim the article is a roman catholic production hence, its obvious leanings.

It's admirable to want to study our 'Christian Heritage'; let's just be careful what source we're studying it from.

I would be VERY weary of this article. Theophila and Jeppe are right, this comes from a CATHOLIC website. I went to the website linked and found articles defending "Mary the Mother of God" and pugatory, among other things. As has been said, we need to be careful to check the sources FIRST.

Noone is perfect. However the way Luther ended his career by writing his anti-Semitical garbage casts a shadow over his theology.

We have to remember that the German Lutheran Church during the Nazi era cited Luthers lectures on Rom 13 (to submit to state/the leader) and that Hitler himself held Luther as a personal hero.

"On Jews and their lies" gave fuel to the Nazis to act in the "Crystal Night". Take heed, brothers!

Sincerely Magnus
:-x

Thank you Brother Christian,

Here is an article from the 'Reformed Perspective' not as different as those speaking out against what you have posted may think.

http://thirdmill.org/magazine/default.asp/site/iiim/category/magazine

IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 11, May 10 to May 16, 1999

THE ANABAPTISTS
Reformation Men and Theology, Lesson 10 of 11
by Dr. Jack L. Arnold

INTRODUCTION

The Anabaptists were separatists who rejected infant baptism and believed that the outward, external church should consist only of saved and baptized believers. They would rebaptize those who professed Christ who had previously been baptized as infants. The preposition ana means “again,” thus Anabaptists were those who “baptized again.”

The Anabaptist movement officially began around 1522 in Zurich, Switzerland, when certain men wanted the Reformation to proceed more quickly and to be patterned more along New Testament lines than along those pursued by Ulrich Zwingli. Thus, there was a break between Zwingli and these more radical reformers.

It is very difficult to classify the Anabaptists as a single group, for there was wide diversity among them. Some were fanatics and heretics who brought great shame to the work of the Reformation, but others were not nearly so extreme and fanatical. Some were pantheistic, some extremely mystical, some anti-Trinitarian, some extreme millennialists, while others were quite biblical in most areas of their theology. A good majority of the Anabaptists were spiritual people, dedicated to Christ. They were devoted students of the Bible who felt the Reformers were not purifying the church quickly enough or properly applying the principles taught in the New Testament. The original Anabaptists were called “Brethren” or “The Company of the Committed.”

The Anabaptists were probably the least understood and most persecuted of all the groups of the early Reformation era. The Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists opposed them violently.

FAMOUS ANABAPTIST LEADERS

Introduction: As a whole, the Anabaptist movement centered around the common people who wanted the simplicity of New Testament Christianity. However, some outstanding, educated men were leaders among the Anabaptists.

Conrad Grebe: Grebel was a prominent member of the church in Zurich. He had been led to the evangelical faith by Zwingli, and heartily approved his work of reforma-tion. But he soon became disappointed with Zwingli and Luther because he felt the church was not being reformed along New Testament lines. In January, 1525, a man named Blaurock asked Grebel to baptize him again, although he had been baptized in infancy. Grebel complied. Thereupon, Blaurock rebaptized others. Thus the Anabaptist movement had its beginnings with Conrad Grebel.

Balthasar Hubmaier: Hubmaier was one of the better educated men of his day, having received his doctorate in theology. He was a priest, and, during his pastorate in Walshut, a great change came over him as he studied the New Testament. He found many things he had been doing were not biblical, and he began to preach reform. Hubmaier’s conscience began to bother him about the Bible’s teachings about baptism, the purity of the church, the new birth, discipleship, and evangelism. Hubmaier rebaptized his entire congregation of 300, and the church renounced all fellowship with Rome. He believed in evangelistic preaching, and went into Moravia where thousands were saved. Hubmaier was probably one of the few Anabaptist leaders who believed in election and predestination. He died a martyr in 1527, and two years later his wife was strangled and thrown in a river.

Jacob Hutter: Hutter was a godly man who preached in Austria, Moravia, and Poland until his martyrdom in 1536. He founded a sect called the Hutterites,

Menno Simons: Simons was a humble man who lived a hard life. A priest of the Roman Catholic Church, he left by his own choice around 1536, believing he could no longer live with his conscience as a Roman Catholic, He felt that neither the Catholics nor the Reformed Church did much for the inner life of a man, that it was all externalism and hypocrisy. He opposed the fanaticism of his day, and could not understand why Christians persecuted one another. He had many struggles over discipleship and holy living, and truly believed that dedicated Christians would receive persecution from the world. Followers of Menno Simon’s teachings came to be called Mennonites, and their work later spread to Russia, the United States and Canada. The Mennonites have always been pacifists, and are earnest, industrious Christians, who have often lived in communal settlements.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE ANABAPTISTS COMPARED TO THAT OF THE REFORMERS

Introduction: On the basic issues of Christianity, most of the Anabaptists and Re-formers were in total agreement. They held to the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atonement, the authority of the Bible and the second coming of Jesus Christ. The Anabaptists were neither deep theologians nor interested in forming doctrinal creeds, although they did set forth their beliefs about the church in the Schleitheim Articles (1527).

Church and State: The Anabaptist movement was actually a reaction against the close ties between church and state in both Catholic and Protestant domains. In the Protestant churches great masses of people would come into the church when a city council or prince would join the Reformation. Because most of the citizens of the state were also members of the church, the bond between church and state was very great. In many cases, even though the Reformers took away the external aspects of Roman Church ritual, the personal lives of the people in the external church were not touched. Also, many used the teaching of justification by faith as a license to sin. The Anabaptists demanded a strict separation of church and state, for the purity of the church and for the protection of the church from persecution by the state. This was carried to such an extreme that they were completely pacifistic, opposed to all military service, and took no oaths and held no government offices.

Liberty of Conscience: The Anabaptists, because of their doctrine of separation of Church and State, stood for liberty of religion and for a “free church.” They opposed the establishment of any faith by law, asserting freedom of religion, and believing that there should be no basis for persecution whatsoever. They taught that a man was free to believe according to the dictates of his conscience, even though he may be wrong. A person was free under the Reformers in their different domains only as long as he agreed with them. Simply put, there was little or no religious liberty under the Reformers.

Purity of the Church: The Anabaptists believed that the external, visible church, as nearly as possible, should be made up of regenerate, baptized people. For them, the church was not an institution as the reformers held, but simply a local fellowship of believers. They believed in “voluntarism” — that a man comes into the church because he knows he is saved, and that he cannot be born into the church. Often, the Reformers thought that to renounce Rome was enough, but the Anabaptists demanded that a man know that he was saved before entering the external, local church.

Anabaptists believed in the “ban,” which gave the church the right to discipline its members. A Christian came into the church by his own choice and voluntarily placed himself under the government of the church.

Believer’s Baptism: Anabaptists were inflexible on this point. They opposed infant baptism as unscriptural, and felt this was the basic reason that so many inside the Catholic and Reformed Churches were not really saved.

Immersion: The Anabaptists in their early days did not make any issue over the mode of baptism. We know that many practiced pouring for years before they came to the conviction that immersion was the mode of baptism in the New Testament. They also believed that any Christian could baptize another Christian, and that this was not the responsibility of ordained ministers only.

Millennialists: A great many of the Anabaptists believed in the premillennial return of Christ, in which Christ would establish a kingdom on this earth for 1,000 years. A few Anabaptists were fanatical about prophecy and brought a bad name on the Anabaptist movement as a whole. On this point, the Anabaptists opposed the Reformers who were held to amillennial theology. These Anabaptists may have been the only group in the Reformation that was looking far the imminent return of Christ.

Separation: The Anabaptists stressed holiness of life and the need to keep unspotted from the world. Sometimes this bordered on legalism and caused isolation of certain groups, but they also opposed worldliness in the local church. They held to complete nonconformity to the customs, thought lives and habits of the world. Being a cultured Christian held no value for an Anabaptist.

Free Will Theology: Although it would be difficult to classify all the Anabaptists, the great majority of them probably held to some form of freewill theology, as opposed to the Reformers who strongly held to the sovereignty of God in election and predestination.

The Lord’s Table: Unlike the Reformers, Anabaptists saw the Lord’s Table simply as a memorial in which Christ was in no way present in the elements.

Evangelism: The Anabaptists zealously carried out the Great Commission and were missionary-minded.

Discipleship: Discipleship was a major tenet in the Anabaptist code of Christian ethics. They wanted to know how it was that many of the Reformers, who held such pious doctrine, lived such sorry lives.

Pattern of Reform: The Anabaptists felt that it was impossible to reform the Roman Church, arguing that one could not put life into a spiritually dead organization. They wanted to start a new church based entirely on the New Testament.

THE MUNSTER KINGDOM

One of the most tragic episodes in the entire history of the Christian Church was the attempt of certain radicals to set up an Anabaptist kingdom at Munster in Westphalia, Germany.

Melchior Hofmann, a radical on prophecy, predicted that Christ would return to earth in 1533. Hofmann was bitterly opposed by the Reformers and the Swiss Anabaptists, but multitudes in the Netherlands followed his teaching, including Jan Matthys. Hofmann was imprisoned in Strassburg, and eventually died there.

Matthys declared that he was the prophet Enoch, whom Hofmann had said would appear just before the return of Christ. In 1533 the followers of Matthys made themselves masters of Munster, and Matthys soon took charge. He proclaimed that Munster was going to be the New Jerusalem with community of goods and without law.

These Anabaptists preached a wild millennialism, and insisted that God’s day of wrath was about to break in which the saints would dominate the governments of the world.

Soon Munster was besieged by an army of Catholics and Lutherans. After granting a short period of grace in which to leave the city, the Munsterites killed without mercy all those they suspected of being unsympathetic to them. Matthys was killed in battle in April, 1534, after which John of Leyden took charge. He introduced the practice of polygamy, and in the autumn of 1534 assumed the title of king.

Munster lay under siege for more than a year while these radical Anabaptists held out with great courage. Their sufferings were indescribable. On June 24, 1535, the city was taken. A terrible massacre followed in which the leaders of Munster were maliciously tortured.

Munster is the “black spot” in Anabaptist history, but most of the Anabaptists were not so radical. Many were actually godly Christians.

PERSECUTION OF ANABAPTISTS

While many of the persecutions were invited on the Anabaptists by their own fanatics, others who were sound in faith were persecuted for their convictions on the Bible. The doctrinal, political and social views of the Anabaptists were obnoxious to both the Catholics and the Lutherans.

Anabaptists were fined, drowned, burned at the stake, tortured, and persecuted in all the manners of the day for such crimes as refusal to pay tithes, re-fusal to attend church, refusal to refrain from Bible study groups in private homes, refusal to refrain from preaching, and other offences against the church-state. Thousands of Anabaptists were put to death.

These Anabaptists were most severely persecuted by the Roman Church. In fact, because many believed in immersion, many were put to death by drowning. The Lutherans also put many Anabaptists to death by one form of execution or another. Even John Calvin, though he did not persecute them, could see little good in them.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ANABAPTISTS

The Anabaptists stood for religious liberty at a time when neither Protestants nor Catholics fully appreciated the importance of freedom of conscience. The Anabaptists made their mark on the world for religious liberty that, indirectly through the Baptists, impacted even America.

Their emphasis on the purity of the external, outward, local church was also very important. Until the Anabaptists, almost every one accepted the idea that a local church should have many unsaved in it.

The Anabaptists had only an indirect influence upon the modern Baptist movement. Modern Baptists who want to place themselves in the Anabaptist tradition need to remember that comparatively few Anabaptists were truly biblical. Furthermore, many of them, while they insisted on water baptism after a conversion experience, did not baptize by immersion. Moreover, the doctrinal position of biblical Anabaptists is more closely related to the modern Mennonite viewpoint than to Baptist theology. Anabaptists were quite ascetic, tended to communism of goods, were pacifistic, opposed the use of oaths and capital punishment, and favored the free will of man as opposed to God’s sovereign predestination.

Quote:
"The Anabaptists were probably the least understood and most persecuted of all the groups of the early Reformation era. The Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists opposed them violently."

So who were these movements who violently opposed the Anabaptist led by?

http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jac_arnold/CH.Arnold.RMT.10.html

The story that has stayed in my mind the most, when reading the History of The Church, was how when the Christians were "thrown to the lions" - how they loved each other and when possible - would put themselves over another Christian so that the lion would get them instead.

May we see those days of self-sacrificial love again.

Amen. A good word sister.

[b][color=000000]One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him [i]that which is[/i] wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy [i]is[/i], shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, [i]if[/i] the witness [i]be[/i] a false witness, [i]and[/i] hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. [/color][/b]

- Deuteronomy 19:15-19(KJV)

Theophila wrote:
To the OP,
What is the source of this 'interesting' article?

I'm surprised no one took Jeppe up on the claim the article is a roman catholic production hence, its obvious leanings.

It's admirable to want to study our 'Christian Heritage'; let's just be careful what source we're studying it from.

yes this is very true, i do have other resources in my mother tounge, but they wont help so much here. I posted this because it was pretty much a "sum up" of [i]some[/i] of the things that worried me. I have page upon page of letters with very disturbing writings from these men also. But I dont want to heap garbage upon them any more. But one thing is to me, who are we that are "reformed/protestant" to complain about the catholics when the ones who delivered us are guilty of the same thing ?

I saw Luther and others as "liberators" from catholicism,, and they did so. But when i read and see how they treated others who did not interpret the scripture in the same way and how they murdered them systematically it scares me. Especially when we have whole denominations following these mens teachings. Our lord Jesus said we should know the man by their fruits, not their doctrine by their fruits.

As i said before, it was not my intention to paint these men in "black" and so on, but i dont want to embrace teachings from men who said such things. I have read things these men said that are no different from what Hitler said, or russian communists.

I feelt great disturbance that so much of our Christianity are based on men as these.

about sources you can easily do search on the net, if you know latin and german you can read from their own letters and works what they said. I have read swedish translations of these and there fore i have not searched out English sources.

[b][color=000000] I, [i]even[/i] I, [i]am[/i] he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. [/color][/b]

- Isaiah 43:25(KJV)

Is this how [b]we[/b] should pour love upon the body of Jesus Christ? By each generation calling to mind the sin and evil that has been done in His name?

Is this how [b]we[/b] love Him? By calling to rememberance the evil done by those who have claimed Him.

Is this how [b]His[/b] body loves and nurishes itself? by exposing shame before all the world?

Is this how you love each other? By accusing and by pointing out each others sins?

i believe we should clothe our brothers nakedness. Love covereth many sins, but should we never lift our voice and question things?

i believe we should, i may lack wisdom when and how this should be done.

Dear brother Christian,

"i believe we should clothe our brothers nakedness. Love covereth many sins, but should we never lift our voice and question things?

i believe we should, i may lack wisdom when and how this should be done."

I do not know when and how it should be done. Who is sufficient for such a thing?

What man would dare drag the virgin daughter of Zion before the courts of the world and expose her skirts before them? Who could take such a thing upon themselves?

The Lord Jesus said,

[b][color=660000]I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. [/color][/b]

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

I am not righteous in myself, who is? I know but one. Our Lord Jesus Christ. So for me to say someone is wrong or did something wrong its not by my opinion. If i acknowledge that murder is sin and bad. Its not me who judge that, it is the word of God. I have not judged their eternal judgement, that is Gods job and i trust he will do so perfectly.

but if God says to murder a man is murder, can i acknowledge that? and say that is so, God has said it.

Or should I always lay my hand upon my mouth and be silent in these matters? This may have been wrong and even sin when i see it through your posts brother.

These men have been dead a long time, perhaps it is wrong to speak in such a way. But we are quick to judge others as Jehovas Witnesses and say they are wrong or mormons that they are wrong. We dare say seventh day adventist are wrong. and in these matters its only small doctrinal issues.

Here for me this was much stronger or much more severe then these small groups that so often are under attack.

I will pray over this brother, i may have just overlooked it if came from someone else, but i hold you very dear brother Chris and i take very serious your warnings and your thoughts and words.

I hope you can understand some of what i have been trying to say. I will search my heart, but i can say i did not with the intension to come and expose Gods holy bride in shame to the world, these things are open, anyone can visit a Islamic website and read Luthers comments about the Jewish people, or a nazi webpage and they very openly quote him. so it is no secret sins. He wrote a book.

Now with everything you said in mind, it may not be my work to expose them or bring this on this forum. I do not see how this is worse then other things brought fourth here ex, exposing false doctrines, prophets or teachings and so on.

I am glad for your words warnings even as if of this moment i dont fully understand, but if it is wrong I want to know. I thank you for your love and concern.

Do pray for me God will give me light on this

Your brother Christian

Dear brother Christian,

"...these things are open, anyone can visit a Islamic website and read Luthers comments about the Jewish people, or a nazi webpage and they very openly quote him. so it is no secret sins."

So do we follow the enimies of Christ in their deeds?

If those who hate Christ love to publish these crimes, should we love to do so also?

Is this how we pour love on Christ's body?

Recently God answered a prayer of mine by leading me directly to a quote from Luther. The words were timely and powerful: They broke through a long-standing spiritual struggle of mine. Then I came to this article – and was rather taken back. To me the article is written in decidedly biased language.

Still, I see an important lesson here. The article illustrates our human bent to accumulate the blackest points about ‘them-guys” and embed them against the very best of “our-guys”. The Anabaptists fell into this trap.

Noone is perfect. However the way Luther ended his career by writing his anti-Semitical garbage casts a shadow over his theology.

The scent of just a tiny drop of blood causes a group attack against the one who only dropped one drop of blood and at that, sometimes only by accident. And coming back for multiple hits, even after the person has apologized.

Luther’s proneness to use highly polemic language was normal in the medieval era. He used the same language towards any who did not accept the gospel. It was not simply that he was anti-Semitic – although in later years he fell into the cultural norm of the day – which was anti-Semitic. That cultural blindness is comparable to the prejudice towards the blacks during the years of slavery in the South – even among the upstanding Christian people. We today are prone to fall into the same trap and become biased.

In order to counteract the negative image of the reformation, I suggest we learn about this important movement from sources that are less biased and more knowledgeable. There are blessings beyond imagination to be had - as I am beginning to discover.

Diane

Diane! the Quote was mine:

"Noone is perfect. However the way Luther ended his career by writing his anti-Semitical garbage casts a shadow over his theology".

Im a lutheran myself, and I have read pretty much everything he has written as well of some of the prevalent biographies concerning him.

For me it doesnt matter if Luther was too far out regarding his antisemitical standpoints - as long as his other teachings (ex. the three solas: "gratia, scriptura, fidei") is corresponding with the Word of God which I am fully convinced it is.

However Luthers anti-semticial stand is terrible as well as his view of the institution of principality. As Christians we have to evaluate every Christian thinker and clergyman on the basis of Scripture. I believe Luther would have liked such method as well.

So whatever is true about Luther is his correspondence to Scripture whatever is false concering Luther is his non-correspondence to Scripture (and foremost NT and the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ). Luther's anti-semtical standpoint goes however, against reason as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Sincerely Magnus
:-D

As Christians we have to evaluate every Christian thinker and clergyman on the basis of Scripture. I believe Luther would have liked such method as well.

ChrisJD is trying to emphasise a truth: Exposing sins of others can have a deleterious effect. We need to be aware of Satan's constant temptations - drawing us to partner in his demonic work of weakening the body or tearing it down (ex in bias and prejudice).

We need to grow in sensitivity to our calling: to edify the saints. Here I preach to myself. Really it is far more edifying to remind one another of God’s miracles in the past and present, and to highlight exhortations that build faith than to highlight the work of the devil. Of coures, the sins of others may teach us something - only as long as we see that we are just as prone to the same failings. But then, we need to present it that way.

There are always plenty around who are good at spotlighting the work of the devil. Why not tilt the balance the other way: and glorify God.

Diane

Am finding this very interesting, if not a bit disturbing on a number of levels, surprised somewhat that an issue is being made over seemingly exposing others sins, is this really the issue?

I am want to say, back up the truth truck here. It would be just as easy to apply;

[i]And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.[/i] Eph 5:11

But I am not interested in drawing out camps over this, however I must come alongside our brother Christian with this. I do not know if it is recognized or not, but the short shift given to the atrocities is a glaring, almost suspicious ... observation. All things considered, including the source of the material and whatever particular agenda might be back of it all, I would note our brothers often enough mention that these things are found in their own writings, they own words 'accusing or excusing' and that he furthermore mentioned his own reading of them on his own.

There are some very real and ugly, incredible matters. I think we would do a worse disservice to just pretend that it all never took place.

We have gone down some of these paths here in the past and there is something to be said for the times and atmosphere all the prevailing circumstance, the 'laws' in place and so on and so forth. But for all that, to just shove into a back room or under the carpet and trump the 'good' things that where said or expressed, the theologies created and the aspects of reformation that are more to our liking even rightly so as it aligns with scripture ... To do this thing is a reverse pragmatism and is dishonest.

Someone mention something to the effect of these matters being of any edification and another grasped on to a particular that I would even elaborate on. That it might humble those who have such a tight grip on these particular theologies as being ipso facto also have these very perplexing, troubling, even galling character attributes ... despite the times, despite all of it ... that it might take them down more than a notch in the high estimation given them. For crying out loud, we are talking sheer brutality, accessories to heinous crimes, murder, hatred ... It is disturbing indeed.

But when i read and see how they treated others who did not interpret the scripture in the same way and how they murdered them systematically it scares me.

I have this same problem when I study the history of my country. There were many “Christian” slave owners in America. If you do the research you will also find the hand of “Christians” in the terrible atrocities committed against the Native American Indians. Let us not forget the Salem witch trials or the Ku Klux Klan whose ranks were riddled with “Christians”.

The fact is there were also many good people that came out of this country as well.

If history does anything, it reveals man's true, sick, and sinful nature. As you continue to study history, this ugliness will continue to rear its head time and time again. When people claim to follower Luther or say he was a Great Reformer they are not condoning this ugliness; just as I do not condone all the actions in America’s past.

Especially when we have whole denominations following these mens teachings.

If a top brain surgeon suddenly starts committing murder it does not mean he was not a top brain surgeon at one time and that his teachings and techniques are not of any value.

In my opinion, the good that came out of the Reformation far out weighs the bad.

We must remember to play the ball…not the man.

I am not attempting to gloss over these terrible events, but if we keep too much of a focus on our sick and sinful past we will never be able to go forward. We should learn from history while being careful not to dwell on it. We should go forward, after having learned from our, and others, mistakes. As always there is a balance.

I, being a complete history nut, am often immersed in these atrocities of the past and often need to take a break and get away from them.

These events should be studied by all who have not taken the trip.

Be careful…you are in for one wild ride. It will change you.

I am not trying to defend Luther's ideas about the Jewish people. But have any of you actually read "The Jews And Their Lies"?

You would find that Luther not only says that the Jewish religion should be done away with, but also likens it to the other false religions of his day, and says that they are nothing more that tools for Satan to keep people from Christ.

He speaks about the Muslims in this work as well.

Simply because there is an affectionate bent towards Israel and Jewish people, does not, and should not allow us to think of them any higher as any other false religion, and this was the point that Luther was making.

Many, many men have down horrible things using Scripture to defend their motives, but does that mean we throw out the Bible?

I am tired of people who cannot undo the truth in the doctrines then turning their guns on the men, and saying that because the men were sinful, then all their ideas are wrong.

If this is proper, we better throw out the books that Moses wrote as he sinned and it cost him entering the promised land. Then we better throw out anything that has to do with David too, because not only did he have multiple wives, but he also was a murderer, and an adulterer. Yet God says that he was a man after His own heart.

Pretty much all of the Bible would have to be thrown out if we discounted what men wrote because of their sin.

If a man's teaching agree with the TOTALITY of Scripture, it's safe to say that he's ok, and yes this means understanding Greek and Hebrew definitions so as to not be presumptuous in our exegeting Scripture, something which sadly is not done in our day.

But have any of you actually read "The Jews And Their Lies"?

not all of it, but a portion of it, [url=http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm]Read it here online[/url]

Many, many men have down horrible things using Scripture to defend their motives, but does that mean we throw out the Bible?

I am tired of people who cannot undo the truth in the doctrines then turning their guns on the men, and saying that because the men were sinful, then all their ideas are wrong.

If this is proper, we better throw out the books that Moses wrote as he sinned and it cost him entering the promised land. Then we better throw out anything that has to do with David too, because not only did he have multiple wives, but he also was a murderer, and an adulterer. Yet God says that he was a man after His own heart.

Pretty much all of the Bible would have to be thrown out if we discounted what men wrote because of their sin.

If a man's teaching agree with the TOTALITY of Scripture, it's safe to say that he's ok, and yes this means understanding Greek and Hebrew definitions so as to not be presumptuous in our exegeting Scripture, something which sadly is not done in our day.

What disturbed me in this reading i did, was not so much Luther on the Jews, which he do have some very strong sayings, but rather his recommendation to Zwingli how to handle the "plague" as he called it.(anabaptists)

and how they set ultimatums to all people, all anabaptist had a week to come and baptize their children or the would be jailed. Later they ordered that anabaptists should be put to death by sword, fire or any way seem best where ever they could be found.

To me this is no small scriptural thing, quarrel or disagreement.

If the pentecostals started murder everyone who dident accept tongues as the sign of baptism of the holy spirit can i question whether that is right?

or shall i overlook it because it is found in scripture? and say well we are all sinners, and the pentecostals have done much good and do have a good view of scripture overall, its just these thousands of murders that may seem a bit strange...

i dont know, i will study more and research it more, there are many letters between Luther & Zwingli for them who want to find out them selfs

and i agree most what Luther wrote and did was very good, And we owe him a lot i think. Zwingli not so sure what to think.

I see these Anabaptists as very godly, and how they gladly died for the truth and our Lord.

and they are an example to all of us.

I am not trying to defend Luther's…

Conversely, blaming certain people for social atrocities is also problematic. It fails to acknowledge the bigger picture, and the many other factors at play. True Hitler used Luther’s name to prop his hatred, but in the case of the holocaust – there were many, many other factors that precipitated the event – far less remote than Luther.

… to carry this idea further: Think of the many present day slanderous accusations against the entire missionary movement, propped by a constant barrage of slanted information. These days most people know far more about the horrendous exploitive motives and abuses of “missionaries” than they do about the movements of God. They have never heard of Hudson Taylor or the countless others through whom God brought blessing. Entire new religious movements are being founded based on these sorts of biases. I ask, how will people ever know any differently?

If we Christians do not bring to the forefront the good works of our Lord and his faithful servants, no one else will! We simply leave our society in the dark, assuming that there is no other side to the matter. And that is tragic beyond what words could express!!

“ I will teach you hidden lessons from our past—
stories we have heard and known,
stories our ancestors handed down to us.
We will not hide these truths from our children;
we will tell the next generation
about the glorious deeds of the LORD,
about his power and his mighty wonders.” Ps. 78:3,4

Diane

I understand Chris's concern that it is not right for us to be displaying before all eyes the sins of our fathers.

Noah's sons Shem and Japheth, when Ham told them of finding their father passed out naked in a drunken stupor, they took a garment and walked in backward, and covered him (Gen. 9.23).

Ham, who it seems had gazed contemptibly on his nakedness, paid a heavy price for his unholy attitude: the curse that came upon his own son Canaan.

Then there is the story of the downfall of Saul. David lamented over this, even though Saul had treated him like an enemy. "Tell it not at Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughers of the Philistines rejoice..." (2 Sam. 1.20).

I am not saying by any means this is what Christian or Kire (earlier on) were doing, in fact I say not. (As for the motive of the website the article is on... that I'm not too sure about.) But in any case, this is an area we can all search our own hearts about. I think this must all be a matter of the motive of the heart.

The same goes with all the "nakedness" we see in the Church out there today. What is going on in our own heart when we view all that? Do we ourselves burn with shame for it all? Or is that "...the other guys"?

What is the motive of the heart?

I remember when a few years ago I myself first became aware of the persecution the Anabaptists had received at the hands of the Reformers. This was totally new to me. I was deeply grieved by this, and hurt, to discover that men who themselves had been persecuted became persecutors of others!

I discovered this by reading The Secret of the Strength, by Peter Hoover, a history of the Anabaptist movement, and one of the best books, I think, I have ever read. (Apparently it's out of print now, but can be read online at www.gw.org/sos/. I highly recommend it.

Hoover, himself of Anabaptist background (Mennonite) gives a very honest history of the Anabaptist movement, showing its great strength in the early beginnings, and the weaknesses that caused it to deteriorate as well.

What was the secret of the Strength? (For it is astonishing to see how fast they multiplied and grew in the face of withering persecution.)

(I think I will just leave that question unanswered for the moment... but likely many of you will know it already.)

And then again, what was it that so deeply troubled and splintered the movement after not too many years? Here's a telling statement from the book.

"What Zwingli, Luther, and the Pope could not accomplish through force, the terrible abuse of brotherhood authority accomplished in the space of a few years. In the north, the movement broke into dozens of quarreling fragments. In the south, many got discouraged and fell away. Thousands of Anabaptists, including most of those in the lower Rhein area, gave up and joined the state churches. Among those who remained... the proud spirit of 'we are the ones who own the truth' and 'following Christ means submitting to us' was carried by what was left of the Mennonites, the Amish and the Hutterites to America to reproduce itself a hundredfold there" (page 268).

This, remember, is from one of their own, and he gives forth openly their story with one objective: NOT that we should gaze on their nakedness, but rather for the same reason that the psalmist rehearsed the sad story of the failings of the Israelites in the wilderness, AS AN ADMONITION TO US, "that (we) might set (our) hope in God... and MIGHT NOT BE AS (OUR) FATHERS..." (EDIT, forgot reference: Ps. 78.7,8)

It seems when we look back through Bible history, or Church history, we see many wonderful things. And many grievous things, too.

Hopefully these are written "TO THE INTENT that we should not" ...fall after the same example (1 Cor. 10.6).

So, what about us? It's we who are on stage now. And the Scriptures teach us that God's Name is blasphemed among the nations of the earth because of His own people (Rom. 2.24).

That's US now, as well as our fathers! "WE have sinned, with our fathers..." (Ps. 106.6).

...So, if the world out there-- the Catholics and the secular world out there-- can reproach us for what they see in our history, it's no use trying to cover it over, or trade barbs with them.

But let's walk in backwards when we see Luther's nakedness. Or Zwingli's. Or the Anabaptists... or a failing brother today... or the great nakedness we see in the church of our own day as well.

Let us humble ourselves in God's sight for such things. The reproach falls on us, WE bear it!

"Agree with thine Adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him..."

And then, let it all bring us to brokenness before Him. It is HIS Name we grieve for.

Let it bring a cry out of our hearts that God do such a work in us in OUR generation... so as to remove our reproach from among men. We know only too well our own hearts, don't we, never mind those who went before us.

How reproached we feel so often, knowing of these "skeletons in the closet" back there. Knowing also, the present condition of the Church in our own day. And then our own hearts! What is to be done about it all? What about Your Name, Lord? Glorify YOUR NAME in all the earth!

He says He wants to do this, and will do it.

"He will swallow up death in Victory... and the rebuke (the reproach) of His people shall He take away from off all the earth, for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. And it shall be said in that day, this is our God, we have waited for Him... we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation" (Isa. 25.9).

...I just feel to close this post with a little prayer, if I may.

COVER US, dear Lord, cover your people, "with LIGHT as with a garment," not the glaring light that exposes sin to the eyes of the unsanctified, but with the covering Blood, and the Light of Christ, that cleanseth from ALL sin! Let not darkness ever be our hiding place, dear Lord, but LIGHT! Amen.

Thanks,
AD

Diane,

May I suggest you study "Martyr's Mirror" and then tell us who was biased?

ginnyrose

Not to anyone in particular

Many of these books or “accounts” in general are biased from any number of perspectives. Few people can read such works without being offended by or adopting a bias themselves. There is a lot of propaganda involved as well.

It takes time to investigate and truly understand the time period and all the cultural and political ramifications these people were dealing with. If you have the time to truly delve into such studies and pursuits please do. I’m sure there are many truthful tales, but there is more than enough bias from all sides to go around.

Much of the time understanding history is like Opie Taylor trying to understand what it’s like to grow up and live as an LA gang member by reading a couple of books. He might think he understands…but…I’m sure you get my point.

I’m not trying to trash any of these books. I have read many of them and will probably do so again. I just want to issue a warning. Remember…there are three sides to every story.

Basically what is being unveiled here is, I am convinced, a test to OUR OWN hearts.

And I wonder if we can pass the test.

Concerning the sins of others, and their faults and failings and shortcomings, there are basically TWO ministries in this universe.

The one is a ministry of accusation.

The Other is a ministry of intercession.

So I can read of the shortcomings of those of past days, and perhaps sadly, reluctantly, have to acknowledge that these things are true. At least it is sad to me. Some others, it seems, are not so sad about it.

But this is the focus for me: what is happening in my own heart?

Am I gloating? Accusing? (The ear is able to try words; those with a tender heart will be able to discern the spirit of the Accuser of the brethren... almost rejoicing to read of Calvin's mistakes, or Luther's or the Anabaptists in their failings.)

Or... am I making intercession with Him who is at the Right Hand of the Father?

Bring forth, O Lord, that glorious church without spot or wrinkle or blemish or any such thing!

This is the bottom line. What spirit are WE in?

AD

He wasn't historically biased, I was.

Annie, thank you for that honesty.

It is still troubling the seeming distancing that can be done over these things. The motives are questioned, the odd silent defending that comes across with a constant stream of 'buts', anything but the harsh truth and cruel displays even from the men's very own lips, anything but to just look at it and not be greatly disturbed. Why all this extra? Like it or not, it does reflect upon the character, because it is part and parcel of that same character, otherwise we are very much in a practice of preaching truths not embedded into the heart and lived out from there.

There is so much that would have to be put as 'it's not about that' here that it seems an exercise in futility. To apply an overabundance here as long as this forum has been going towards supposedly 'exposing' these matters couldn't be further from the truth. The exact opposite is allowed and furthered and even championed as to what many of these same men have taught. To take this turn aside to look at what they allowed, what they furthered, what they did is more than a fair shake. Indeed the scriptures themselves hold back no warts with Moses, Noah, Saul of Tarsus, David even, most certainly is this not an effort to go about anything other than to force ourselves to look at these historical matters honestly, truthfully and with the sheer force of the atrocities committed as they are.

I do agree that a caution is in order towards taking things piece meal and with whatever bias might be back of those who wish to speak beyond facts, pragmatise, embellish, what have you. But bluntly there is no defending these things where they are true, where they are in their own words and to do so by distraction to some other course or consideration I just have a very difficult time grasping.

One of these days I will find just who it was, it is here buried in the archives of this forum someplace, but the gist of it was this ... Someone in our history had the temerity and courage to actually agree with a certain theological construct which I believe was Calvisnism and yet opposed the very manner and method of how they wished to enforce it, not at all dissimilar to some of these atrocities. For that, he was turned on, labeled a heretic and persecuted just as if he had flatly opposed them.

The [i]mode and the manner[/i].

This is primarily an issue of control and of manipulation, of forced conversion in all it's different outworkings. Strip it all back of it's avenues and even one instance ought to be enough to be disturbed.

[i]But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:[/i] Mat 15:18,19

Hi brother Mike,

"I do agree that a caution is in order towards taking things piece meal and with whatever bias might be back of those who wish to speak beyond facts, pragmatise, embellish, what have you...

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: Mat 15:18,19"

about false witness and blasphemies,

This is from John Gill's exposistion of the entire Bible, from James 4:11

Jas 4:11 - Speak not evil one of another, brethren,.... The apostle here returns to his former subject, concerning the vices of the tongue, he had been upon in the preceding chapter, Jam_3:6, and here mentions one, which professors of religion were too much guilty of, and that is, speaking evil one of another; which is done either by raising false reports, and bringing false charges; or by aggravating failings and infirmities; or by lessening and depreciating characters, and endeavouring to bring others into discredit and disesteem among men: this is a very great evil, and what the men of the world do, and from them it is expected; but for the saints to speak evil one of another, to sit and speak against a brother, and slander an own mother's son, is barbarous and unnatural.

He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law; he that is a talebearer and backbites his brother, his fellow member, and detracts from his good name and character, and takes upon him to judge his heart, and his state, as well as, to condemn his actions, he speaks evil of the law; and judges and condemns that, as if that forbid a thing that was lawful, even tale bearing and detraction, Lev_19:16, or by speaking evil of him for a good thing he does, he blames and condemns the law, as though it commanded a thing that was evil; and by passing sentence upon his brother, he takes upon him the province of the law, which is to accuse, charge, convince, pronounce guilty, and condemn:

but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law; as is a duty, and would best become:

but a judge; and so such a person not only infringes the right of the law, but assumes the place of the Judge and lawgiver himself; whereas, as follows,

Hi Brother,

[b]Mat_15:18-20[/b]

Christ proceeds to state what does defile the man, or render him a sinner:

1. “Evil thoughts” These are the first things - these are the fountains of all others. Thought precedes action. Thought, or purpose, or motive, gives its character to conduct. All evil thoughts are here intended. Though we labor to suppress them, yet they defile us. They leave pollution behind them.

2. “Murders.” Taking the life of others with malice. The malice has its seat in the heart, and the murder therefore proceeds from the heart, 1Jo_3:15.*

3. “Adulteries, fornication.” See Mat_5:28.

4. “Thefts.” Theft is the taking and carrying away the goods of others without their knowledge or consent. Thefts are caused by coveting the property of others. They proceed, therefore, from the heart, and violate at the same time two commandments - the tenth commandment in thought and the eighth commandment in act.

5. “False witness.” Giving wrong testimony. Concealing the truth, or stating what we know to be false - a violation of the ninth commandment. It proceeds from a desire to injure others, to take away their character or property, or to do them injustice. It proceeds thus from the heart.

6. “Blasphemies.” See the notes at Mat_9:3. Blasphemy proceeds from opposition to God, hatred of his character Rom_8:7, and from a desire that there should be no God. It proceeds from the heart. See Psa_14:1. Mark adds several things to those enumerated by Matthew:

(a) “Covetousness.” The unlawful desire of what others possess, this always proceeds from the heart.

(b) “Wickedness.” The original here means malice, or a desire of injuring others, Rom_1:29.

(c) “Deceit,” i. e., fraud, concealment, cheating in trade. This proceeds from a desire to benefit ourselves by doing injustice to others, and this proceeds from the heart.

(d) Lasciviousness. Lust, obscenity, unbridled passion - a strong, evil desire of the heart.

(e) “An evil eye.” That is, an eye that is sour, malignant, proud; or an eye of lust and passion. See Mat_5:28; Mat_20:15; 2Pe_2:14, “Having eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin.”

(f) “Pride.” An improper estimate of our own importance; thinking that we are of much more consequence than we really are. This is always the work of an evil heart.

(g) “Foolishness.” Not a lack of intellect - man is not to blame for that - but a moral folly, consisting in choosing evil ends and the bad means of gaining them; or, in other words, sin and wickedness. All sin is folly. It is foolish for a man to disobey God, and foolish for anyone to go to hell.

Albert Barnes

* 1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

"Who is my brother?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I certainly have no qualm with anyone of our good brethren here and we could likely go back and forth reminding each other of scripture from the perspectives we are offering.

I am still very much puzzled over this idea that these glaring obstacles ... should not be spoken evil of? Do not the statements from their own lips do their own judging ... why is there this sense of "Don't do this, don't ..." what, disclose these things?

[i]speaking evil one of another; which is done either by raising false reports, and bringing false charges; or by aggravating failings and infirmities; or by lessening and depreciating characters, and endeavouring to bring others into discredit and disesteem among men: this is a very great evil, and what the men of the world do, and from them it is expected; but for the saints to speak evil one of another, to sit and speak against a brother, and slander an own mother's son, is barbarous and unnatural.[/i]

Is this not precisely what got so many tortured and killed? Bringing false charges, exaggerating offenses, [i]endeavouring to bring others into discredit and disesteem among men[/i] ...

For far lesser sins and for wrong teaching, for leading the sheep astray, for WOF and prosperity constructs and a whole host of other present day matters we collectively would denounce and yet ... When it comes to presenting something of this ilk all of a sudden the tables are turned and "We shouldn't _______". I do not follow. Jesus consistently unmasked the duplicity and hypocrisy of men. Be it Pharisees of even his own disciples. I do not know that there ever was any attempt at those things being brought to bear as judging or maligning or bearing false witness or any other motive than this one word;

[i]Disturbing[/i].

There are many that seem to wear the title of Calvinist as some badge of honor and I wonder now as I have often wondered in the past just why on earth anyone no matter how much agreement might be had of the particulars would want to do so. It is no attack on his particulars of applied theology, but on the title itself.

[i]Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?[/i] 1Co 1:12-13

I would hope that the sheer cruelty of these great reformers would indeed bring them back down to earth and out of the lofty status granted them. That carrying about these derived titles of men or construct or denomination might be given pause at their own sorid histories, they are there, they are often spoken in and from their own lips and I just do not understand the fear of being honest over the whole ugly matter.

Knowing these things, reading these things, you who may have held such a great esteem for their reformation efforts are you still want to carry also all the associated baggage that goes along with them in these titles?

Our history is full of all kinds of disturbing matters and I do not know that the effort is to pit one against the other, lessen one set of atrocities at the expense of another or do the ghastly thing of trying to just make it all go away so we can concentrate on the [i]good that was done[/i].

The trouble I am finding with this is either the inference or the statement of combined accusation, speaking evil of these men, bearing false witness, 'exposing their sins' and so forth. If we read the admonishens correctly they are towards stating things that are not true. If that is the case then the evidence ought to be brought forth to correct them, not to just infer that this is the case. If they did not say these things, do these things then bring forth the argument otherwise and correct it.

To do so by saying we do not have all the facts or all the considerations is to cast it off into generalities that have no footing. It is almost as disturbing as the disturbances themselves.

Hi Mike,

If I can just clarify my own perspective on this...

I am thinking of Elijah, where Paul says, "he maketh intercession to God against Israel..." (Rom. 11.2).

Notice it says, intercession against, not accusation against. For, as grievous as the sins of Israel were, Elijah would not company with the Accuser of the brethren.

This is what makes all the difference.

There's no use pretending the past history of the Church is a beautiful story from end to end.

There's a lot of ugliness there, too.

Some there are who when they read of these things, this is all fuel for their own accusing spirit. They, along with the Accuser of the brethren, feed on these things.

But there are others in a different Spirit. It's a grief to them to read these things, and they make intercession, yes, maybe against it all, but intercession nonetheless.

Looking back at the whole history of the Church, there is much wonderful to read. But an honest history also discloses sin, mistake, failure, shortcoming... time and time again.

Her enemies gloat over it all. This is triumph for them.

Not so her friends: it is defeat, and they make intercession, looking back, and at the same time looking FORWARD. Ahead of us is the promise of a glorious church without spot or wrinkle or blemish or ANY SUCH THING. God wants to bring this into being, and is able to do so.

The Lamb that was slain will yet receive the reward of His sufferings.

Look behind us, and there is darkness. Ahead of us? Light! For "the path of the just is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the Perfect Day" (Pr. 4.18).

AD

1 Corinthians 2:15 - 16 (NKJV) 15But he who is spiritual, [b] judges all things[/b]yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 - 22 (NKJV)[b]21Test all things; hold fast what is good[/b] . 22Abstain from every form of evil.

1 John 2:26 - 27 (NKJV) 26These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 27But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you [b]concerning all things[/b], and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

Brothers and Sisters I have read this thread with great interest and have been amazed as I have in times past that some of these that have posted here and have posted such wonderful truths on so many, many threads with such apparent humility such as Brothers Christian and Kire and Pastorfrin, would be accused just as Sister Annie was on another thread regarding the gifts of the Spirit of an improper motive in bringing these things to light. As TJ has ably pointed out history is always written with a bias just as all of our writing has many preconceptions, but the person seeking for truth and having the Word of God in their heart and the Spirit of Truth guiding them is not going to, as has so often been stated by Brother Mike, “throw out the baby with the bathwater”. Seeking truth is bound to disillusion us from time to time, and that is good, because when we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ we will be far better off, the more illusions we have been ridded of in advance. In implying that uncovering truth good or bad is “slandering” or not showing love, is a whole lot of “judgment” all its own.

As has been said over and over, the Bible is a book that does not by any means gloss over wrong, and the Lord Himself was and is not just “Jesus meek and mild just a step above a naïve child” as some would like to make Him but the Man who overturned the money changers tables and in Matthew 23 repeatedly called hypocrites, hypocrites and snakes and vipers who they were… those who were whitewashed on the outside but full of murder, hatred and a whole host of other things in their hearts. There was and is never any glossing over of sin by Him who was and is Light incarnate.

The saying comes to mind “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Sadly power had a corrupting influence many, many times in the church. And unfortunately we see the same thing happening over and over again in the church today with those whom men have put upon pedestals and we have the same foolish defense of some of them by those who think it so improper to expose their sins before the whole world… while the whole world has already SEEN their sins and looking at us as [i]foolish hypocrites[/i] for defending the indefensible.

It is NOT humility and godliness to cover what is already a dreadful reproach to the name of Christ and is already fuel for the enemies of Christ. Honesty and integrity demands that we examine the realities of what sins have been and are being committed in the name of Christ. I have been in dialogue with a local Muslim imam for over a period of 4 years now, and this very kind of “smoothing over” and unwillingness to face the facts of Christian history is the very kind of dishonesty that is so very reminiscent of what they do regarding the atrocities of Mohammed in their hadiths and in very real history. The dialogue is lost already when we, as Annie pointed out regarding the Catholics, are unwilling to face the facts of what has been done in the name of Christ. We have to separate "hypocritical actions" from the reality of who and what Jesus is and taught, without the least bit of justification or there is not a leg to stand on.

For Christ’s sake and the sake of the Gospel, we cannot be guilty of such foolishness. Jesus Christ called a spade a spade and as He did the common people loved it… but the sanctimonious crowd that did not want truth exposed ended up crucifying Him.

Surely we are to research and not accuse falsely and not be loose with facts, but on the other hand to deny things that are corroborated in the mouth of multitudes of witnesses is neither honest nor does it in any way strengthen our witness in a world that already cynically asks as Pilate did “what is truth?”.

And this is not to condemn anyone on this thread but just to second the call for integrity. If we lose that what can we say to a world that is looking to us for truth

Clint

To no one in particular.

I hope there are no Calvinists that believe John Calvin was free from committing any and all atrocities. I have never read or met any serious church historian that would argue other wise. I also hope that people understand that being a Calvinists does not mean one endorses John Calvin’s behavior, or even all of his theology. Calvinism is simply a term. They could, I believe with some degree of justice, have called it Augustinianism which was in existence eleven hundred years before John Calvin, but the term Calvinism stuck and is in use today. I have noticed a trend by some to distance themselves from this ugliness by referring to their beliefs as Reformed. But I fear many will demonize this term as well, recalling the actions of the reformers.

Do you call yourself a Christian? You will die of old age before you finish reading the horrible deeds done under this banner.

Do you call yourself an American? The list of sick, twisted, and perverted actions perpetrated under this flag is long as well.

These are labels that help us converse; the use of which does not mean endorsement of all actions, thoughts, or principles.

I do like to simply refer to myself as a Christian, a follower of The Way, but I enjoy theological discussion and must at times apply these terms for that purpose. Many can simply dismiss these past histories so as to continue discussion, but as Mike has noted these labels are truly terrible when one views them in their totality.

The issue of pride is of great concern. I believe Mike likened it to a “Badge of Honor” and this is disturbing. As a child I sat through many a sermon that contained low blows and cheap shots directed at Calvinists. You could hear and see the pride in them. The pride that comes from knowing they had not fallen into that poor state of deception like those “Calvinists.” I have seen many, on both sides, with puffed out theological chests. This is truly sad. Denominational and theological pride is…scary…at least to me.

The problem I see within these conflicting histories is not one of ‘did it happen or not?’, but was he (Calvin) misguided due to cultural, political and even religious institutions of his time that we do not truly understand, and thus, we should view these happenings (sins) with some degree of sympathy…or was he a complete and utter demonic murderer that was in league with the devil himself? This is not to subtract from the terribleness of his actions. We know his actions were wrong, but to what degree do we degrade him? It is all so very tragic. I enjoy reading his work. I take no joy in reading about his life.

I think the original poster, Christian (hmmhmm), may have had concerns as to Calvinists endorsing John Calvin. This is not the case, at least with the Calvinists I know.

To many of the history buffs on SI this is all old news and has so often been used to simply put down Calvinism that reactions are sometimes…a little too quick.

For those wanting a little more historical info please read on.

This is a less harsh view of Calvin, but it does not excuse his actions. This next segment was taken from a site that I cannot find the link to…sorry.

According to Schaff’s Church History, Servetus stayed at Geneva for about a month, taking few pains to conceal his identity. After attending services in Calvin’s church one Sunday, Servetus was arrested on charges of heresy. Calvin believed that it was just and right for heretics to be put to death. In this regard, he was not different from Servetus who also believed that heretics, specifically the heretic John Calvin, should be put to death by the Genevese Council.

During the trial it was Calvin’s job as expert witness to prove that Servetus was a heretic. Calvin’s expert reason and clear thinking triumphed when Servetus chose to hurl insults at Calvin rather than offer a defense. It is important to note that at this time the Council was not controlled by friends of Calvin but by his enemies, the patriots and libertines. This is probably why Servetus felt that he did not have to offer a substantive defense against charges of heresy. We have a written record of the debate because each was required to write their statements and responses for review by the churches of four other prominent protestant cities.

During the time that the other cities were reviewing the debate Lyons requested extradition, but Servetus pleaded to stay in Geneva and protested that he would accept the judgment of the Genevese Council rather than be sent back to Lyons. He had reason to believe that the libertines on the council were on his side, given their intense hatred of Calvin. However, in the end, after receiving recommendations of guilt from the four cities, and in light of the publicity the trial had generated throughout Europe, the libertines and the patriots on the Council decided that Servetus was not worth saving. In a show of bravado intended to send a message that they could be just as “tough on crime” as John Calvin was, they sentenced Servetus to death by burning. When Servetus heard, he could not believe it. Despite Calvin’s intercession on behalf of Servetus that he be put to death humanely, the Council refused and Servetus was burned on October 27, 1553.

Calvin went to his deathbed believing that the execution was just because Servetus was a blasphemer and a heretic – a murderer of souls. Even if Calvin was right, that heresy was “spiritual murder”, the proper solution would have been excommunication and no more.

I think the original poster, Christian (hmmhmm), may have had concerns as to Calvinists endorsing John Calvin.

yes some :-) , but Calvin was not the main reason for the article, even thou he is mentioned in it. I have read i believe 5-6 threads about Calvin and what happend, i have heard all sides and the ones in between. But i had very little knowledge about Luther and this other man Zwingli, and what they did and did not do.

As i said i read a swedish book, directly translated it is called "the third reformation" it is a a church history biography one may say, The author has translated personal letters from Luther,Zwingli, and many of the Anabaptists. And Also protocols from Debates or "Disputations" and also from different trials and accusations. And to me it is incredible first what they where charged with.

Take Felix Mantz for example, he was charged and later murdered,

1. Mantz had tried to start a new church where the members where sin free

2. He had taught that christians could carry a sword or have a gouvrnment office

3. He had taught christians should share all things

4. against former promise that he shouldent baptize done so anyway

These where the charges against him, of course they are not true Mantz when answerd the accusations 1. it was true he tried to start a free church, in his own home this toke place. On the sin less teaching he says it was not so. Membership condition was obidence to Gods word and willingness to follow in Jesus footsteps.

on no two Mantz says it is right, as little it is possible to imagine Christ grabbing a sword and cut down another man , as unlikely it would be for one of his followers to do so.

on the third point Mantz says its not true, he says he taught the Christian obligation was to bring help to a fellow human in need.

on the fourth and final charge Mantz say it is so. He had baptized people on their request.

Mantz was later drowned in a very cruel way. Thw whole account is available in [i]Quellen zur Geschichte der TÄufer, part 204 by von Muralt & Walter Schmid 1953[/i]

I have read translated works from many of these latin and german writings, and with what cruelty and whit what force the murdered and killed people who did have another view of scripture!

in letters i read Luther and Zwingli say these anabaptist are not worthy to be called humans, they should be beaten and chased out of town as one beats a mad dog. And more and more and more...

Later it is established all "re-baptisers" shall be put to death wherever they can be found, by sword or fire or drowning or whatever way seem good.

When i read these things it is hard for me to not thing, where these actually "brothers" ?

I do not know, but for me Luther was a "hero" who liberated us from the "tyrant" of the catholics...

Now i learn they used the same methods themselves

here is a commentary excerpt from zwinglis work

[i]This is no place in which to describe the outrageous treatment which the Baptist party received in Zurich and elsewhere through Switzerland. The writer feels the freer to use such a term because he is not himself a Baptist, but he comes to the subject merely as a historical student. He considers that the part which Zwingli played in this wretched business is a serious blot upon his reputation, and reveals a defect in his character. The Baptists were pursued relentlessly; drowning, beheading, burning at the stake, confiscation of property, exile, fines and other forms of social obloquy were employed to suppress them and prevent their increase. The fact shows plainly that the persecuting spirit in the times of the Reformation was just as rife among Protestants as among Roman Catholics, and that the devil was abroad in the hearts of those who considered themselves on both sides as the true servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose tenderness and love must have been greatly tried by thesewicked doings of his friends.

Peace came at last to Switzerland—the peace of the grave-yard and of the sea which gives not up its dead. The orthodox party congratulated themselves upon having got rid of the pestilential heresy of adult baptism, yet the student of history as he looks upon the large, flourishing and world-wide Baptist church of to-day asks himself which side really won the battle for the right of private judgment and liberty of action, the side of the persecutor or the side of the persecuted? [/i]

[url=http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1682&chapter=3822&layout=html&Itemid=27]Zwingli writings[/url]

TJ,

I see you are quite knowledgeable as to Church history.

I often wish I myself had a better grasp in this area... although I have done some reading along this line.

I remember years ago a brother lent me a book on Church history in which the author traced what he called "the scarlet thread of Redemption" all the way through the centuries, showing that in spite of the darkness and apostasy, there always was a faithful remnant that held to the Truth, though they were usually severely persecuted.

I really enjoyed that book, and eventually returned it to my friend. He since has "gone to his reward," and now I wish I could remember the title of the book so I could read it again.

No chance this might ring a bell with you, the "scarlet thread of redemption" thought?

Or maybe you might recommend a good honest book or two on church history, hopefully written by someone Spirit inspired? You mentioned some by the name of Schaff?

Hope this request isn't considered an intrusion on this thread.

Thanks,
AD

Hope this request isn't considered an intrusion on this thread.

no it is most welcomed, it is good for all of us to get good recommendations to read and study and learn from. I would like one day to go through the Martyrs Mirror. And some other books .

Thanks, Christian.

Do you know you can read Martyr's Mirror online?

I see you are quite knowledgeable as to Church history.

I have only just begun this journey through “Church history” a few years ago and am far from knowledgeable. I have a background in history, but as for “Christian” history there are many on this forum that will be able to help you more than I.

However, I have enjoyed the “History of the Christian Church” by Philip Schaff. It is an eight volume set that I would recommend to those that enjoy walking through the past.

While I do love books, I spend just as much money on ink, paper, and binders. There are many outstanding resources online.

Good luck to all who embark on this journey.

Do you know you can read Martyr's Mirror online?

yes, i have read some accounts of some persons i was intrested peticular in latly, but i would like to go through it all. It is a "long" book, to long for intrernet reading . For me anyway, I will try get it some other way if possible. Even as some things has been "negative" and maybe focused on sins and so on, I still think some of these men are a true example, what men, we can read some of their final letters from prison knowing they are about to die, and what words.

And through this blood the church grew, more and more came and joined them.

I think of an Art Katz quote, he says "the largest scandal of the western church is the absence of persecution"

I think he is right in many ways.

Hi brother Mike,

"I am still very much puzzled over this idea that these glaring obstacles ... should not be spoken evil of? Do not the statements from their own lips do their own judging ... why is there this sense of "Don't do this, don't ..." what, disclose these things?"

The word translated devil in Matthew chapter 4, according to Strong's is

G1228
διάβολος
diabolos
dee-ab'-ol-os
From G1225; a traducer; specifically Satan (compare [H7854]): - false accuser, devil, slanderer.

The American Heritage Dictonary defines traducer this way,

tra·duce (tr…-d›s“, -dy›s“) tr.v. tra·duced, tra·duc·ing, tra·duc·es. To cause humiliation or disgrace to by making malicious and false statements. See Synonyms at malign. [Latin tr³d¿cere, to lead as a spectacle, dishonor : tr³-, tr³ns-, trans- + d¿cere, to lead; see deuk- below.] --tra·duce“ment n. --tra·duc“er n. --tra·duc“ing·ly adv.

The same spirit that is said to have been a murder from the beginning is also called the father of lies and the accuser of the brethren.

The Lord Jesus said,

[b][color=660000] I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. [/color][/b]

Dear brother, of course everyone is free to do what they want to do. But I haven't heard anyone here yet say this is what God want's them to do.

Chris

ChrisJD said: "I am still very much puzzled over this idea that these glaring obstacles ... should not be spoken evil of? Do not the statements from their own lips do their own judging ... why is there this sense of "Don't do this, don't ..." what, disclose these things?"

Who is making malicious and false statements? Do you have any evidence to counteract what has been written?

What this thread appears to me to be is an honest and sincere attempt to arrive at truth.

Brother Chris with all due respect I do not see your point at all, and I disagree that there has been no one to say that this what God want's them to do. If you will refer to my post you will see the scripture quoted that tells us to
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NKJV) 21Test all things; hold fast what is good." And this scripture context is in connection with prophecies or we may extend it to prophets or those who have preached. And that appears to me to be precisely what these brothers and sisters are doing, and that appears to me to be precisely what our brother Mike is saying (and I am certainly not trying to speak for him or anyone else).

The Lord Himself [b]certainly[/b] told us to examine the tree to see what sort of fruit was/is being produced and he said that in connection with discerning whether or not one is/was a false prophet. To blindly close our eyes to things corroborated by an abundance of historical evidence when the world around us is looking at contemporary Christians to see whether or not we truly speak truth is to put us in a peculiarly bad position. See Sister Annie's post again regarding her EXPERIENCE with someone more versed in history and the effect of denying historical facts. See my post regarding an ongoing dialogue with Muslims in my town who certainly cannot and will not respect the sweeping under the rug facts or refusing to discuss allegations without some corroborating evidence to refute it.

There is not one of the posters here taking the side of the devil which seems to be your implication in FALSELY accusing or slandering men, but simply discussing findings of historical nature that should caution us not to swallow wholesale the teachings of those who are so apparently flawed in their personal fruit. That caution is just as valid for those who are preaching today. It is not being diabolical but being Biblical to point out the facts of those who are building their own personal empires at the expense of the poor for example,or those who are living blatantly immoral lives while telling others how to live. The Lord Jesus spent several verses pointing out the wolves in 23 of Matthew. Paul was very pointed in describing those who had made shipwreck of the faith and named them. John was very descriptive of the man, Diotrophes who loved to have the preeminence and so forth.

Christianity is not an imbalanced and lopsided thing of all love and avoiding stating the the truth, otherwise Jesus would never have been crucified. We are commanded to hate evil just as much as we are commanded to love righteousness.

It is NOT humility and godliness to cover what is already a dreadful reproach to the name of Christ and is already fuel for the enemies of Christ. Honesty and integrity demands that we examine the realities of what sins have been and are being committed in the name of Christ. I have been in dialogue with a local Muslim imam for over a period of 4 years now, and this very kind of “smoothing over” and unwillingness to face the facts of Christian history is the very kind of dishonesty that is so very reminiscent of what they do regarding the atrocities of Mohammed in their hadiths and in very real history. The dialogue is lost already when we, as Annie pointed out regarding the Catholics, are unwilling to face the facts of what has been done in the name of Christ. We have to separate "hypocritical actions" from the reality of who and what Jesus is and taught, without the least bit of justification or there is not a leg to stand on.

For Christ’s sake and the sake of the Gospel, we cannot be guilty of such foolishness. Jesus Christ called a spade a spade and as He did the common people loved it… but the sanctimonious crowd that did not want truth exposed ended up crucifying Him.

Surely we are to research and not accuse falsely and not be loose with facts, but on the other hand to deny things that are corroborated in the mouth of multitudes of witnesses is neither honest nor does it in any way strengthen our witness in a world that already cynically asks as Pilate did “what is truth?”.

It is very easy to become very self-righteous in refraining from casting any dispersions upon the dearly departed while casting a general cloud on these brothers and sisters that are our brothers and sisters seeking the truth in the here and now.

I am trying to understand where you are coming from.. please enlighten me :-( .

Clint

Hi broclint,

[i]I think you mistook the qoute(at the top of your post) from brother Mike for something I said? I wanted to ask just in case.[/i]

broclint, about this,

"Who is making malicious and false statements?"

The american Heritage dictionary defines malicious this way,

ma·li·cious (m…-l¹sh“…s) adj. Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful: malicious gossip. --ma·li“cious·ly adv. --ma·li“cious·ness n.

Brother, isn't publishing these things deliberately harmfull?

As to being false or not, I do not know if they are or are not false. Do you? Are you willing to stand behind every thing that was written and posted here with your reputation and before God? and assert that it is [b]altogether true[/b]? and that it represents teh facts in the most truthfull and honest way?

"What this thread appears to me to be is an honest and sincere attempt to arrive at truth."

And how is that going to be known? Are we going to hold the trial of these men here?

"1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NKJV) 21Test all things; hold fast what is good." And this scripture context is in connection with prophecies or we may extend it to prophets or those who have preached. And that appears to me to be precisely what these brothers and sisters are doing, and that appears to me to be precisely what our brother Mike is saying (and I am certainly not trying to speak for him or anyone else)."

If I'm not mistaken, Richard Wurmbrand was a Lutheran Pastor. If after a trial is held here against these men, and Luther is found guilty of (being a false prophet?), should Pastor Wurmbrand's message be removed from the site?

How about any of the speakers here that made statements supporting John Calvin. Or John Knox?

Where does the investigation of fruit stop?

"To blindly close our eyes to things corroborated by an abundance of historical evidence when the world around us is looking at contemporary Christians to see whether or not we truly speak truth is to put us in a peculiarly bad position."

I'm not advocating defending anything that is wrong or to cover up anything that is evil. It has been testified here that these things are widely published. Does that mean we have to join in publishing them in order to convince the world of something?

There is a differnce between covering things up, that is, [b]purposefully obscuring the truth[/b] and participating in making accusations and charging men with crimes and guilt.

"There is not one of the posters here taking the side of the devil which seems to be your implication in FALSELY accusing or slandering men, but simply discussing findings of historical nature that should caution us not to swallow wholesale the teachings of those who are so apparently flawed in their personal fruit."

I do not mean to accuse anyone of doing that either. But isn't that the danger here? Is this worth bringing that kind of guilt upon ourselves?

If any of the things published here are lies, any of them, then isn't that slander?

"It is not being diabolical but being Biblical to point out the facts of those who are building their own personal empires at the expense of the poor for example,or those who are living blatantly immoral lives while telling others how to live."

Is that what is being done here? [b]Have these accusations been proven here?[/b]

"The Lord Jesus spent several verses pointing out the wolves in 23 of Matthew."

How did He do that, by qoutations from a website or by the Spirit of God?

"Paul was very pointed in describing those who had made shipwreck of the faith and named them."

Where did he do that, in the Areopagus or in a private letter? Was he talking about men he knew and things that had happened to him personally or things that happened centuries before that he read about.

"John was very descriptive of the man, Diotrophes who loved to have the preeminence and so forth."

See above.

"Christianity is not an imbalanced and lopsided thing of all love and avoiding stating the the truth, otherwise Jesus would never have been crucified. We are commanded to hate evil just as much as we are commanded to love righteousness."

But we are warned too about the consequences of our words.

"It is very easy to become very self-righteous in refraining from casting any dispersions upon the dearly departed while casting a general cloud on these brothers and sisters that are our brothers and sisters seeking the truth in the here and now."

In the world, there is a rigid system of justice and burden of proof before men are condemned as guilty. And also how allegations of their guilt are handled.

Chris

EDIT: "...isn't publishing these things deliberately harmfull?"

I don't mean that brother Christian was being deliberately harmfull in publishing these things, but that the allegations themseves seem to be, that is, deliberately harmfull.

we just love each other - even though we all know about these Histories and am happy we all do for the main purpose, that History is to be learned so that we'll avoid repeating it. AMEN !!!

Nicely said Annie.

HE_Reigns wrote:
The "quotes" of men from the past and the historians, etc., don't affect how I see fellow Christians at all.

To coin a phrase I just learned from PaulWest - I know I'm "pretty messed-up", but I knew most of these histories before I 'asked' to be a member of a Reformed Theology Presbyterian Church last year.

Now go figure - because if we 'must' title one another - I'm a pentecostal/anabaptist.

All I know is that it's not about Denominations or Teachers but about the Love of Christ shed abroad from heart to heart. When I feel that - I'm attracted to it.
I can't become reformed theology - but they don't expect me to and never asked I do and I don't try to change their theology neither.

Go figure - we just love each other - even though we all know about these Histories and am happy we all do for the main purpose, that History is to be learned so that we'll avoid repeating it. AMEN !!!

"Love never fails!"

AMEN. Good post sister, good post. :-)

Brothers, TJ if I might just emphasize your comments as whole earlier, but in part;

As a child I sat through many a sermon that contained low blows and cheap shots directed at Calvinists. You could hear and see the pride in them. The pride that comes from knowing they had not fallen into that poor state of deception like those “Calvinists.” I have seen many, on both sides, with puffed out theological chests. This is truly sad. Denominational and theological pride is…scary…at least to me.

All very well said. Chris and everyone else, I do need to do some recanting, at least some clarifying. One of the things that I far prefer is source material when it can truly be had. The tendency to jump to conclusions even when things seem almost extraordinary, that no one would go to quite these lengths to excerpt things that were said and ... am thinking of the earlier comment form TJ as well;

After reading an article people say things like, “I never knew that.” I usually reply, “You still don’t. You only know what I wanted you to know.”

I did set about attempting somewhat to see if these things were so. Just as an example, went looking for Luther's words as they were presented originally, but did not find the source and therefore better able to absorb the content. Did come across a piece however, again, if it is also true, that might change up the perspective;

[i]He had no patience with those "monks and priests, snoring in their deep-rooted ignorance" who would perpetuate an erring system, whether through sloth, greed, or fervent belief, mattered not in the least once he had prescribed so clear a course of treatment. Naturally, the Church had no inclination to do this rude upstart's bidding. Frustrated, Luther exploded: "Why do we not seize, with arms in hand, all those evil teachers of perdition, those popes, bishops, cardinals, and the entire crew of Roman Sodom? Why do we not wash our hands in their blood?" When he realized the extent to which a thirsting Europe was hanging on his every word, he softened his rhetoric for fear of sparking a conflagration: "I should not like to see the Gospel defended by force and bloodshed."[/i]

http://www.canadafirst.net/our_heritage/luther/

Just a consideration and maybe that is all that I would want to add, that there is a lot to be considered.

It doesn't change everything else and I will not belabor the point anymore over the puzzlement whether there is something inherently wrong by disclosure of things done. It is really in your face and disturbing, I do not know how else to put it.

But I did want to recant where I was also jumping to conclusions without really investigating and looking into the sources. Mentioned earlier about presenting evidence contrary to these statements if they had been embellished or taken out of context and while that may still hold true it seems far better to verify them first rather than the other way around.

Some of them stand alone and are easier to find. The situation with Calvin as was mentioned has been gone through here in this setting many times and again brought to bear. It's still disturbing and it is still ... said I wouldn't belabor the point ... But there it is. Thinking on this earlier the notion that crossed the mind was where a tendency is to 'either\\or' matters and really it is 'in addition to'. In addition to these are those of the Crusades, of the horrors of Rome ...

Hate to do this as the perception can be one of lessening the severity, now that I think about it perhaps that was the issue all along. But it does give me pause to fear and humble myself even more knowing those possibilities, seeing that even those who were certain of their constructs could go to such lengths ... all given the right set of circumstances, atmosphere, times. Have said before that I do not need Calvin to convince me of my depravity and that is not a knock on him by any stretch, it just is so. He certainly proved it out even in those instances where he thought he was doing what was right, true and even Godly. He lived his own theology at least on that point.

It's just ugly and the truth of things often are.

He lived his own theology at least on that point.

Brother Mike,

Thus we see the problem with man throughout history.
When we follow our own instead of 'Him' we will fail and fail most miserably. I know some have tired of my insistence of the non-resistance path, but this is the example that Jesus himself set and we would do well to pay heed.
It does not matter that Jesus will one day use the sword, it will be 'Him' the righteous judge doing so.
No, in this life we are called to follow Him and His example and if we refuse to return 'evil for evil' but go about doing good, as our Christ set the example for; their will be none of these atrocities of 'living our own theology' among us.

Let us learn from history and follow the example of Christ, then and only then will we not have to fear becoming apart of the things about to come upon this world.

In His Love
pastorfrin

"...as our Christ set the example for; their will be none of these atrocities of 'living our own theology' among us."

[b][color=660000] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. [/color][/b]

- John 5:30(KJV)

[i]Go to sleep, dear little boy. I have no gold to leave you, but a rich God. If you become a lawyer, I will hang you on the gallows. Some lawyers are greedy and rob their clients blind, it is almost impossible for lawyers to be saved. It's difficult enough for theologians. (Luther, to his son)[/i]

Rather liked that quote, thought I would share it.

Here's another piece that married even my own musings;

[i]People with ideas are our perpetual source of discomfort. We don't really think of Luther much anymore and those who do, don't really think much of him. His monumental achievements are forever subordinate to "what he did to the Church," "what he said about the Jews," or "his insensitivity to women." As Luther might have been the first to ask: isn't imposition of our (dubious) moral authority on persons 500-years-dead something of an arrogance in itself? Alas, it has always been fashionable to dismiss Luther as not quite relevant or not quite nice. All his life he was accused of the oldest (and surprisingly contemporary) Christian libel -- odium humani generis -- hater of the human race: used to such cruel effect in devising tortures against the early Christians. As if to punish the man who did not even want the new Church named after him, Luther was omitted from official histories over 45 years of Communist rule in East Germany. During those dark years, Wittenberg's sole claim to egalitarian glory was a poisonous chemical industry. Today, Luther is eclipsed by the ubiquitous presence of an American civil rights activist. It is ironic in the extreme to remember that Martin Luther King (born just, plain, Michael King) legally changed his name in tribute to a man he rightly regarded as absolutely without peer.[/i]

http://www.canadafirst.net/our_heritage/luther/

Though the thought to beg off all this and just leave well enough alone, found I could not do so - so easily. Would hate to see any animosity or unresolved concerns just left lying to die amongst ourselves.

"What this thread appears to me to be is an honest and sincere attempt to arrive at truth."

And how is that going to be known? Are we going to hold the trial of these men here?

If I'm not mistaken, Richard Wurmbrand was a Lutheran Pastor. If after a trial is held here against these men, and Luther is found guilty of (being a false prophet?), should Pastor Wurmbrand's message be removed from the site?

How about any of the speakers here that made statements supporting John Calvin. Or John Knox?

Where does the investigation of fruit stop?

Brothers, there is no trial here in that sense, but I myself may have contributed to an appearance of it being so earlier.

EDIT: "...isn't publishing these things deliberately harmfull?"

I don't mean that brother Christian was being deliberately harmfull in publishing these things, but that the allegations themseves seem to be, that is, deliberately harmfull.

"The allegations". Yes, it's true in part ... May have skimmed a bit too quickly over the source of the original material and got caught up in the severities which seem pretty understandable, but still, it is difficult not to look at the forwarding agenda of the source of the material. Even the Luther excerpt they used may have been shortened to further their agenda.

The word; "Unbiased". How difficult a word it is for us many times, it is something of a constant challenge and for the life of me, for more of it. It has been a particular pet peeve for some time to be reading along something for all intents and purposes is truthful or seemingly so and then out of the blue comes some notion, some bent that wants to be forwarded and the whole thing takes on a different color. It is either contrived or embellished, overplayed or underplayed. Pragmatic reasoning ... frankly it's just flat out lying at bottom. Who knows what reasonings may be behind it at times, what motivations, sometimes they are overt and obvious others it seems the great fear is that people can't think for themselves so it needs this extra bit to move it along ... Just as well, there are times when it could be wished people would do their own thinking.

But for the record, if it really mattered, am very much unbiased or strive to be that is over many a matter. The whole C and A debate. I get just enough of it all to be somewhat comfortable in my purposeful ignorance ... I just do not see a need to be forced into an acceptance of a pointed, systematic construct, there is just to much to be considered. "Perhaps" is a favorite word and even that perception must have it's own elements of being 'wishy-washy' but it's not that, it's a misunderstanding, something I think is emblematic of attempting to be unbiased while the musing goes on ... "Consider". I think that is the beauty of all this. SermonIndex is a challenge when you boil it all out. We are up against it not by purposeful attempt to do so but by the range of perspective that is presented here. Beyond that, it is true to this life that we have as peculiar people that we do not think more highly of ourselves than we ought and the realm of things that we might know and our perceptions of how the Lord might challenge us often clash, and there we are, here we are, up against it. I think it is just flat out tremendous. It puts us in the humble place of disciples, "learners" if we apt to be always after the truth ... [i]have you considered?[/i] is the large looming attribute that comes from all these discussions. It's far different than a sloppy ecumenicism that lets compromise dictate at the expense of sacred truth yet allows for a compromise or better just a consideration where we do not have all our facts straight.

"I never thought of that". "I didn't really consider this." "I think I missed something that you brought out that has challenged me here."

"I was\\am wrong." Seems to me if we were a bit more honest that these kinds of statements would be much more in our repertoire, but [i]perhaps[/i] pride wins out, bias rules more than we know.

Guess I felt a need to unload that burden here, not that it has never been appealed to before. I hate things that are shaded or contrived or embellished. The force in any challenge is the challenge itself, not the forcing or painting of things in more or less favorable light. To get back to the matter at hand, the original out takes (and not the presenter, our brother) certainly there is a bias and an agenda that casts it back to wonder of the motivation, not that difficult to discern considering the source. Too bad they couldn't make their argument on better grounds, without bias, without shading and painting it in hues and colors ... let the reader decide.

[url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm]The usually excellent Catholic Encyclopaedia's surprisingly tendentious "Luther" entry [/url]

The title speaks enough for itself. The content even more so. Still trying to be unbiased, is even this perception and description expressed previously (In the first link) regarding Luther without it's own slant and purposes? ... Painting him in more favorable light? [i]Perhaps[/i] ;-) It seems fairly well presented, primarily unbiased but ...

That is what I would draw our attention to here in even this whole exercise of just discussing these men and these matters. That is to present them unbiased and to present them in all their failings and triumphs, it is the same as scripture does, warts and all. I think it also proves out our mettle and is a witness all it's own that we fear nothing of the truth no matter how ghastly it might be. There is no intent to put anyone on trail though we could easily be led to do so but jumping to conclusions or ratcheting up the rhetoric, I am guilty of doing some of that earlier.

Though it got launched off from a biased perspective and has disturbing elements in it, would like to see it truly explored with that same noble Berean mindset that anything ought to be done in, just to see if these things be so. It is right and true and healthy to test all things and that doesn't need to be back laced with a lot of suspicion before hand though it may become evident enough before long.

Probably well into a ramble by this point, but to bring this back again ...

[i]As Luther might have been the first to ask: isn't imposition of our (dubious) moral authority on persons 500-years-dead something of an arrogance in itself?[/i]

Challenging isn't it? We are blessed with the foresight of hindsight, something they didn't have. And while that doesn't excuse any atrocity committed, any foundational, scriptural attribute violated or any other thing that is indeed disturbing ... It can be dubious when we were not in the very midst of it while it was happening. We might like to think otherwise and we very well may have been the ones to stand up and cry out against it, but the fact remains we can't do it in reverse and frankly we just do not really know how it might have played out, if we were to be truly honest about it.

Do you call yourself a Christian? You will die of old age before you finish reading the horrible deeds done under this banner.

So true! My argument has been regarding the specific banner under which spokesmen shape their story - which tends to colour their portrayal of it. I’ve seen it in my own family history:

During the war my predecessors (ardent reformers in Holland) organized the rescue of Jews. From my grandfather’s viewpoint this operation could have been far more successful if disunity among the churches hadn’t been so prominent. In his written testimonial he faults some evangelicals for what I perceive as indisputably legitimate concerns.

By the time I came along, I could sense a generalized distrust over evangelicals. That thankfully changed and some of us eventually joined them. Then years later, as a Baptist, our pastor taught us that we were essentially the only legitimate branch of Christianity because we were the only ones who could trace our origins back to the apostles. Is there not just a wee bit of pride there? Is that not what leads to prejudice down the road? (compare with how the Jews were persecuting the Gentiles in the Ephesain churches)

...... fast forward to yesterday: The CBC featured a brief documentary on recent religious developments in post-tsunami Asia. Apparently several Christian organizations with money to spare are sweeping in and building new villages, along with their own churches. Apparently (!) some evangelical groups came in with loads of money and offered to build people a new village – but only if they all converted to Christianity. Since not all the villagers were willing to convert, the missionaries left – offering absolutely no help.

Perhaps there is some truth in that, though no proof was offered - other than one testimonial of an angered Buddhist. (Could he not have been a tad bit biased!!) Imagine how "effectively" that press release will colour the already tarnished view of evangelicals, and how that will help propel a hatred towards them. (likely not moderated much by CBC's attempt to balance the document with a more positive testimony of a BIC missionary)

The Bible never glosses over the sins of humanity – and neither should we. But, the Bible, unlike uninspired “history” presents it objectively – or, rather, from God’s point of view - with one goal: to keep us seeing our need for a Savior – the only answer for our human depravity.

What about applying these question when reading articles:
Who's saying this?
What might be the writer's goal?
Is it marked with generalizations?
Does it foster deepening hostility towards certain people?
Does it intensify dividing walls or promote restoration?

Diane