I Reject the Reformers

If you reject them, you reject them. Why does the world have to know? And if you do reject them, what of it?

Don't you suppose there is enough strife, arguments etc on the forums, with inciting more?

What is it in the word of God, that you have read, to make you post this?

It's sad to read this, but hardly surprising or original.

RE: Krispy Krittr wrote
"The Reformers wrote and wrote and wrote... so it's best to actually read their own words, and not bother with modern day historians who often times take things out of context, or have an agenda."

Amen I agree. What disturbes me is not what others write about the reformers since most Christian historians are pro Reformers but What the reformers themselves wrote.

have you read The Jews and their Lies by Martin Luther??
or the treatise against the Anabaptists Against the Libertines by John Calvin??

Bearmaster,

If you don't agree with the quote, why quote it? And, to suggest listening to the series shows you agree.

All I can see is that this will in no was edify any one who reads it.

Krispy Wrote

The Reformers wrote and wrote and wrote... so it's best to actually read their own words

FINALLY something you and I agree on Krispy (i exaggerate... I know we agree on far, far more than we disagree on Krispy. Someday we will meet, I will buy you a huge steak dinner, and we will walk out of the restaurant as good friends. )

That aside, I do agree with Krispy's statement. I also agree with proudpapa that

What disturbes me is not what others write about the reformers since most Christian historians are pro Reformers but What the reformers themselves wrote

If you read their own words it is chilling to the bone! It appears that the perhaps the only real reason Calvin makes a break is to form his own little "Vatican City Swiss Style". He then sets himself up as basically the "Pope" of his Vatican and then squashes all opposition by persecutions, jailings, and old fashioned murder of those who disagree with any of his theology. Not sure how he exactly "reformed" from Rome there... it was just that in his Rome he (Calvin) was the pope.

Calvin stated

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church." John Calvin

So... it wasn't enough that he puts to death folks for anything or any reason he sees fit including disagreeing with him theologically about anything..... he goes on to say that if you do not agree with his tactics YOU should be put to death as well. WHAT?!?!?! The key to remember is that you were a heretic IF JOHN CALVIN SAID YOU WERE. He set himself as the arbitrator of who was and wasn't a heretic.

He executed 57 people, and excommunicated 66. He also jailed a great many more for no reason other than tiny differences in theology. He even surpassed Augustine in severe treatment!! Like Augustine, Calvin quotes Lk 14:23 to support and justify persecuting and punishing heretics.... of course it is again heretics by Calvin's definition only.

Realize that some of these were killed or persecuted simply because they did not agree with infant baptism. Do you get that?!?!? John Calvin would martyr (kill, murder) you if you disagreed with him about infant baptism... or one of a myriad of minor theological issues.

John Calvin became a one man judge, jury, and execution squad of the christians. He even sent out his own form of KGB to spy on and find folks not cow towing to his minute theological rules or leanings so he could jail or kill them. Other times he records his plots to get people into his jurisdiction that disagreed with him so as to jail or murder them.

Then Calvin incredibly attributes his persecution and murder of christians to "God's will". Of these horrible actions Calvin states

It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule

It is not clear at all that many of the reformers did anything with a regard to helping the people. It may have been done at times simply to give them a base to use against Rome in a selfish effort to establish their own little Vatican City in Switzerland.

I agree with proudpapa. It isn't those who write after Calvin, or others, that concern me. It is what Calvin himself, and others, actually wrote themselves. It is further bothersome that many who follow them are either ignorant of their words... or worse, they willingly choose to ignore them.

So yes, as Krispy says, READ THE ACTUAL WORDS OF CALVIN, AND OTHERS.. it is a tale that would be worthy of inclusion in Foxxs Book Of martyrs. It is among other things a story of a man named Calvin who with systematic forethought murdered and persecuted followers of Christ that dared to ever think anything other than exactly what he told them to. Yes, read for yourself... then what will we do with that knowledge?

Hi Krispy you wrote:

"John Calvin never had anyone executed. John Calvins role in Geneva has been greatly exaggerated."

Can you expand on this statement a little.

Thanks, Russ

@ Krispy

I have nothing against you either. If I am in your neck of the woods the dinner is on me!

I have noticed your efforts to be more of a bridge builder and less confrontational over the last month or so. Well done. I applaud you. It is appreciated!

It is with that appreciation for your recent posts that in humbleness and calmness I submit to you the following for your consideration.

In your first post you suggest to people that they not listen to or read the more current histories about the reformers. However, most all of them are written from pro reformer points of view and strongly support the reformers.

Your suggestion was to read the actual words the reformers wrote. I agree with that. Non the less.... If one reads from the reformers then there is no small amount of the blood letting they loosed. Their attacks spilled the blood of christians, and others, that were their targets. It simply is a fact. It is in their own words.

When that point starts to be made in Calvin's own words then your response is that you have to let a lot of that slide as the context of their culture was different. The effect is that it appears that you first tell people to read the reformers in their own words... then if they actually do that you seem to feel a need to tell people not to believe the words they are reading as things were different then.

They did what they did... much of it is in their own words. However, only a foolish person would listen to only one side of that story. In order to be just we also should read the first hand account words of the Anabaptists and others that were under the direct persecution of these "reformers".

I draw an extreme example here simply to make a point.

Reading history from Hitler's or Stalin's point of view is a vastly different thing that reading the Diary of Anne Frank or listening to Corrie Ten Boom.
Sure... we can read Hitler's or Stalin's actual words to see what they said or thought. However, to do justice we must also read eye witness accounts of the Holocaust to get the whole story. Same with the reformers. They are not condemning themselves willingly in their own words... however, they do a lot of condemning by their own words non the less. However, read the others being persecuted by them as well. You don't just read Hitler's words... you read the words of those others who actually saw what happened too.

That same modicum of common sense would need to be applied to reading the reformers it would seem.

Again, no animosity at all. It is just a point that I have engaged as I used to be calvinist/reformed. However, the day came I could no longer abide it nor the (in my mind) faulty foundations that the entire calvinistic/reformed system was built on.

*edited for grammar and clarity*

I agree with the need to seriously study the text and writings of such individuals (rather than modern books about them) if someone wants to know what they believe. There is too much danger of basing an opinion or even pronouncing judgment upon flawed or out-of-context "reporting." There is also a danger in searching through those books simply to find "sound bites" that will be used as an indictment for hellfire.

Why?

All of those men and organizations are flawed. This includes the early "reformers." This includes the modern biographers. This even includes the anabaptists. They were human beings confined to this side of the "glass darkly." While some may have been flawed on more insignificant matters, they were still flawed by their humanity nonetheless. Not all reformers, anabaptists or even earlier believers were pious men.

One thing that is clear from the Epistles is that there was a propensity to "get things wrong" even at such an early stage in Church history. If you notice in the Book of Acts, even Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement so sharp that they split company. Paul rebuked Peter -- a man who walked with Christ, wrote portions of the New Testament and was a focal point of the Gospels and the Book of Acts -- over a gross doctrinal flaw. It seems that even the apostles weren't immune from their flawed humanity.

By the time (~100 A.D.) John was having a revelation of Jesus Christ on the Isle of Patmos, five of the seven churches of Asia were given instructions about various flaws within them. And, of course, the Epistles includes strong words and even rebukes about situations in the churches -- including some that were quite disturbing (remember I Corinthians 5?).

Such flaws shouldn't surprise us. After all, none of us are perfect. We are still confined to this side of that "glass darkly" in which we live in this life. I believe that many marriages end because someone is looking for or expecting a "perfect" spouses (which, of course, is quite interpretive). Oddly enough, I think that many churches and believers split company for the same reason. They are looking for a "perfection" in the church that is either literally "perfect" or at least partially modeled after what they think to be true. Yet, not even the early church was perfect (at least, not when the New Testament was written down).

One thing to remember is that we are perpetually changing. Each of us -- and every other believer -- is changing as we mature to Christ. We should always remember this when we meet with others. We aren't the same people that we were when we first came to Christ (except, hopefully, in our love for Him). We have "grown" in knowledge and understanding through prayer and study of the Word of God.

Now, many believers belonged to other "Church" organizations before they came to Christ. When they met the Lord, their "understanding" was not what it is now...and not what it will be a few years from now. Why? We are continuously maturing during our journey through the "wilderness of this world." Some people, like Martin Luther, were Catholics before coming to Christ. Their doctrinal vision may not have been quite so "20-20" when they first came to the Lord...and it may have taken some time to focus on doctrinal truths as presented by Scripture.

Others have changed in their interpretation of what the Word of God instructs. There were believers a few hundred years ago who believed in or ignored the grotesque concept of slavery. Something that should have been so obvious from Scripture was viewed as acceptable. Many believers, like Martin Luther or the reformers, wrote what they believed at a given moment of time. Like everyone, they may have changed over time. Hindsight (and Eternity) is often the "20-20" that we think that we possess in the present.

For instance, in BEYOND THE CROSS AND THE SWITCHBLADE, David Wilkerson mentioned that he no longer held a "hard line" approach when it came to television. He had spoken about a need to get rid of the TV in the original CROSS AND THE SWITCHBLADE book. Yet, years later, Wilkerson wrote that he and his family would sit down and watch "family westerns" like Bonanza. A decade later (in SET THE TRUMPET TO THY MOUTH), Wilkerson once again wrote about the dangers of having a television in the home.

Now, if a person were to describe David Wilkerson's perspective on the "television" issue, it would be somewhat skewed to assert that he embraced television. It would be more correct to say that, at one point, David Wilkerson believed that it was okay to have a television in the home. And, of course, I don't know what Brother Wilkerson believed when he died last year. My point is simply that his view changed over time.

So, in terms of Martin Luther or the other reformers (or ANYONE else for that matter), it is important to approach the topic with this in mind. Their views may have changed over time as they matured in Christ.

In the past, there have been some heated discussions about Charles Finney. Finney's writings have been analyzed, dissected and criticized many times. Some are willing to embrace much of what he said. Others are unwilling to accept anything that he said. And still, others are quite bold in declaring the man a "heretic." There is little grace offered in terms of how his views may have changed over time. And, of course, we can't seek clarity by speaking to the man himself. This is true of all men who have died. We can't ask them to elucidate on such matters.

So, when it comes to the writings of all men, I suggest that we approach those works with the knowledge that NONE of them are perfect. This includes the reforumers, the anabaptists and every man who have sermons included on this website. We have to simply glean what we can from what they said or wrote. We must test everything and hold on to the good (I Thessalonians 5:21). After all, our faith does not hinge upon the writings or teachings of any of these men or organizations. Our faith is only in Christ Jesus His Word.

With this in mind, it would be beneficial to avoid spreading accusations about others. If we are flawed or even slightly incorrect in what we say (or how we present it), we may end up unwittingly bear false witness against someone else...even if we think it is for a good reason.

Re: Solomon101 wrote to krisspy krittr "I have noticed your efforts to be more of a bridge builder and less confrontational over the last month or so. Well done. I applaud you. It is appreciated!"
"It is with that appreciation for your recent posts that in humbleness and calmness"

I agree, amen to all of those who are keeping there cool on this topic no matter you opinion. We all have things we can learn from each other.

From What I have studied so far of Church History What seems to have seperated the Early Anabaptist from both the Catholics and Reformers was that many of the Early Anabaptist tried to understand scripture by scripture alone. The Catholics always held the Church Fathers such as Augustine as Authoritive the Reformers also interpeted scripture through the Lens of Augustine. When studying Calvins institutes or Luthers Bondage of the Will note How many times they refer to Augustine. When studing the martyrs mirror notice how many times the Early Anabaptist had to argue with scripture against someone quoting Augustine.

I reject the idea of rejection. This is a totally outdated concept in today's theological camps. If Spurgeon were walking along this lake, not a bird would catch fish from it without being attacked by a Zebra mussel.

Without hope, we will never understand the depths of the universe. Stars fade in the memory of the past.

Blessings!

Krispy,

Jesus-is-GOD shared an account of a brother in a Reformed setting that knows gifts and anointing of the Holy Spirit even though he is within an organization that looks down on or denies their present operation. It sounds like the Lord gave her a vision of what he is like spiritually with a view of the glory of God showing from him and a fatness of soul. I haven't had that experience but I have had a couple times where I have seen the glory of God in the faces of the brethren when an anointed word was being shared like face of Stephen when he was martyred in Acts 7.

Hi Approved.

Be gentle to the Reformist, they had their faults yes, and done wicked things. The problem with the reformation is that everything around them, ....was....well, being reformed. In other words, it was pretty messy.

I believe that this is a good perspective. This is what I was trying to express in my previous post just over an hour ago.

My wife and I are having our kitchen remodeled. Our old and broken post-war (late 1940s) era counters and cabinets are being removed and some new oak cabinets and granite counter-tops are being added in their place. While the hope is to have a good, workable kitchen, our house is quite messy. All of the dishes, pots, pans, and food in the old cabinets are located in boxes in our sitting room. Our goal was NOT to make a mess -- but there is quite a mess right now. By removing some things, we uncovered other problems and flaws in our kitchen. The goal is fix past that mess and have a working kitchen that works in "decency and order."

I suppose that the early reformers are something like that. They are coming out of a broken and flawed "church" system that literally controlled continents. It might behoove us to look at those early reformers as having taken some "baby steps." While the anabaptists had a better perspective in just rejecting everything that Rome and most other organized "Christian" institutions had ever taught, the reformers were not an "institution." They were different men with different beliefs at different stages of maturity as they began a different journey than the path that they were on previously.

Like I said previously, we shouldn't model our faith after the beliefs and writings of the reformers (or even the anabaptists for that matter). When I met Leonard Ravenhill as a young teenager, he gave me an interesting word of wisdom. He said that the "Church" is in the condition that it is in because the "Church" has been doing what it has been doing for a very long time. This, he said, was a reason that I should test everything that I have ever been taught.

In this, I think that our attitude should be similar to the anabaptists. We should question everything that we read, hear, are taught, or subscribe to. No matter WHERE we gather such things or WHO has taught them, we should have the Berean attitude and test everything by what is found ONLY in the Scriptures. I don't have a problem hearing what others have taught (even historically). However, I think that we should do so with the knowledge that they were flawed men from particular points of maturity and eras of history.

Krispy wrote >

To the contrary, there is an entire historic branch of Christianity dating back to Christ that believes there is no value in writing "a tome" as you say. A gargantuan book of doctrine may be of great value to Augustine, Calvin, and their followers, but even Paul only got a few pages long at the most. Paul actually said we should judge matters of this life. If these men only have their tomes to commend them, they are lacking.

Krispy wrote >

This history has, of course, been debated extensively. I, for one, disagree. Calvin has blood on his hands. Not only is there an abundance of historical evidence against Calvin, but even some modern-day Calvinists are making apologies for Calvin's role in Geneva. Apostle John said that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Compare men like Dirk Willems, Michael Sattler,Felix Manz and others to Luther,Calvin,Zwingy I personaly find no comparison

Martin Luther knew his bible very well and in context. And Luther knew that what the Catholic Church have been teaching, and their practices in squeezing money out of all Catholics, and in particular from the poor, was positively anti Christian. They charged sums of money for seeing Catholic Religious relics that they prayers, hopes, and dreams may come true through the relics. Catholics were tricked into paying for indulgences as means to shorten the time of a dead relative or friend sufffered in purgatory. So proclaimed the Catholic heirarchy in Rome. And the Catholic Heirarchy placed no limit of how much it actually cost to eliminate their time in purgatory. Thus no one was ever able to give enough money. Luther criticised the Papacy for making Jacob Fugger, a Jewish man, the wealthiest man in Europe, by collecting the Catholic Indulgences from the people and delivering it to the Papacy with himself taking a percentage approved by the Papacy..

Even more important, Luther realized that salvation was not at all based on receiving the Catholic Sacrements. Rather, salvation was obtained instantaneously, by accepting the blood of Jesus Christ, the perfect Paschal lamb, as the ultimate Paschal Lamb, Jesus Christ, that washes away all sins for all time to all who believe in Jesus and accept this blood.

In his early ministry, Luther was very pro-Jewish. He actually defended them from persecution.

So what happened to Luther as he got older so that he became a madman, viciously hating the Jews and calling for their death. Luther became all around bitter, hateful, and violent.

The answer is medical!

Around 1523-24, Luther became to feel the effects of a disease that over time would drive him toward insanity. The disease is Tinitus. Tinitus is a constant and continuos sound in ones' ears. Luther was in constant pain from the noise that never went away. Check Tinitus and Martin Luther on the internet and you will understand what this disease did to him. Today there is treatment for Tinitus, but none in Luther's time. Two of Luther's brothers, and his father, also sufered from Tinitus.

By about 1529 or so, Luther had to hire a bodyguard to protect people around him from being viciously attacked by Martin Luther. His temperment and his writings were awful throughout the remainder of his life, and he wrote a lot of horrible things.

However, Luther was a very good theologian in the early years of his ministry. And He open the door, along with other Bible experts who broke with the Catholic Church, in order to return Christianity to what it was in the first three centuries after Christ ressurection on the Cross.

I understood from the start your intentions for starting this thread Bearmaster. You have found something interesting which you wanted to share with us.
I didn't think you were starting arguments.

It's helped me to understand and hear things about the reformation which I hadn't known. Thanks for starting it.

Re: bearmaster wrote
"The best stance is all things are ours. Much can be gleamed from both the reformers and the anabaptist. So praise God for some of that being preserved at SI."

Amen.

Have you heard the sermon " The Spirit Of Law And The Spirit Of Grace by Denny Kenaston" I would highly recommend it https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=13205

Thats sad.

Firstly what I see today is mostly the "reformers" getting persecuted on bloggs and on the internet.
I have seen slanders on John Piper and on our church here in Sweden just because we are reformed. We dont attack back we just bless them.
But people really write awfull things about Calvin and us etc.
I have listened to people saying all kind of wierd things and almost nothing is true.

Secondly it doesnt matter if someone behaved a bit wrong in some situations the question is what does the bible teach?. If the bible teach it then its true.
I just read through Luthers "The bondage of the will" And I am convinced that he was right. He was by the way teaching double predestination in that book.
But I do not agree on all things he said.
One thing he said was that thoose affirming the doctrine free will are not saved because they deny the grace of God.
That kind of statement I do not agree on.

‎"And I would also, that the advocates for "free will" be admonished in this place, that when they assert "free will," they are deniers of Christ. For ifI obtain grace by my own endeavours, what need have I of the grace of God for the recieving of grace?" - Martin Luther (The bondage of the will, page 229)

Thirdly what Luther and Calvin taught were held by many before them.
Luther quotes John Wycliff. Also John Wycliff belived in predestination. He wrote a book of that topic.
The Valdanses that lived long before Calvin also held to that doctrine.
And most of all the bible teaches it I mean Romans chapter 9 is so clear and 9:6 is so clear that it aint talking abous nations!

Fourthly. The reformers were wrong on the doctrine of baptism because they stil had alot of tradition in their head.
Just like us today. After being a pentacostal for many years I am tody in a baptist church and it took long time for me to get rid of some pentacostal doctrines that are clearly wrong (dispensatinalism etc.)

I used to hold to reformation history. I used to call myself a child of the reformation. No more. The protestant reformers persecuted and put to death those I consider the true believers of Jesus Christ. Those being the Anabaptist.

Thank the Lord he does not deal with us as collective groups, but as individuals. Should we not follow His example and approach Him as such, while gleaning along the way the finest meat each group has to offer? Take the best food from all the different serving trays but sit and eat them only at the Lord's table. Refrain from poking around too long at the buffet. You're bound to eventually find something you won't like. And definitely don't ask about the cleanliness of the kitchen's history!

Eat what is agreeable to you at the Lord's table, dear brother, and do it in peace (I Thessalonians 4:11).

Brother Paul

Jesus-Is-God wrote:

"Actually, this is not an excuse for insanity, most especially in a Christian. Tinnitis is a very common ailment. My father has had it since the big guns of IwoJima and he stayed quite sane. I've had it since 1994 and despite what those who don't know me personally may think :), I've stayed sane. Having worked in the medical fields, both my Dad and I both - him being a Dr/Physologist - both of us are very well acquainted with this malady and others that have tinnitis and few Drs can or will treat it because there's no cure."

Allow me to clarify the effects of Tinnitus on Martin Luther. It may be mild in some, and others will suffer in varying degrees toward severe cases of tinnitus.

Martin Luther had a very severe case of Tinnitus, the main symptom of what is known as 'Menieres Disease'.

In Martin Luthers own words: "When I try to work, my head becomes filled with all sorts of whizzing, buzzing, thundering noises." he wrote, and being a religious man, he blamed the devil.

From Public Med:

Martin Luther's diseases are well documented, because he used to discuss them freely in his letters. There is also a wealth of evidence through reports by his friends. Most of his diseases were common and well known to the contemporary physicians, who accordingly interpreted them correctly: bladder stones, chronic constipation, hemorrhoids. Luther's death obviously was due to a coronary thrombosis. During the last 19 years of his life, in addition to these "natural diseases", Luther also suffered from recurring attacks of a peculiar symptomatology.

Luther himself and his friends considered these seizures to be no "natural disease", but Satan punching his flesh, and he compared them to St. Paul's disease (2. Cor. 12). The first of these attacks occurred on July 6, 1527, when Luther was 43 years of age. It began with a roaring tinnitus in his left ear, which increased dramatically and seemed to occupy the left half of his head. Then a state of sickness and collapse followed, however, consciousness was retained throughout the whole period.

After a night's rest all the symptoms had subsided, except the tinnitus, which, from that day on, continued for all the following years in varying intensity. Similar attacks with increase of the tinnitus and vertigo as the leading symptoms, seized Luther at irregular intervals and distressed him extremely. Former investigators of Luther's diseases interpreted these attacks as manifestations of a psychiatric disorder and a chronic inflammatory disease of the middle ear. The present detailed study reveals that it was a typical case of Menière's disease of the left ear manifesting itself more than 330 years before Menière's classical observation.

From Wikipedia - Menieres Disease:

The symptoms of Ménière's are variable; not all sufferers experience the same symptoms. However, so-called "classic Ménière's" is considered to have the following four symptoms:[6]

Attacks of rotational vertigo that can be severe, incapacitating, unpredictable, and last anywhere from minutes to hours,[7] but generally no longer than 24 hours. For some sufferers however, prolonged attacks can occur, lasting from several days to several weeks, often causing the sufferer to be severely incapacitated.[8] This combines with an increase in volume of tinnitus and temporary, albeit significant, hearing loss. Hearing may improve after an attack, but often becomes progressively worse. Nausea, vomiting, and sweating sometimes accompany vertigo, but are symptoms of vertigo, and not of Ménière's.[9]

Fluctuating, progressive, unilateral (in one ear) or bilateral (in both ears) hearing loss, usually in lower frequencies.[10] For some, sounds can appear tinny or distorted, and patients can experience unusual sensitivity to noises.[11]

Unilateral or bilateral tinnitus.

A sensation of fullness or pressure in one or both ears.

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

Anyone can see the difference between Luther's early well reasoned early writings requesting major reforms in the ugly practices of the RCC and his pro-Jewish views, and his later writing that were positively anti-Jewish and paranoidal.

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

Now you raise a different matter, which obviously effects your view of Luther.

Jesus-Is-God: "Luther was not fully sound doctrinally and GOD only knows the rest, but the things he believed that were not Biblical and the parts of the RCC that he held onto, wouldn't help one's state of mind."

And who is fully sound doctrinally? No one is saved by because all their biblical beliefs is 100% accurate We are saved solely through our acceptance of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of all our Sins. Upon accepting our Saviour's gift to us, we receive the Holy Spirit, God dwelling in us, transforming our very nature day by day as we walk with God. It is God who is perfroming a work in us, that we may naturally do the good that God created us to do, that our joy may be complete.

And on your last point: "If I'm not mistaken - there were those before Luther and the others mentioned along the lines of Calvin - that broke from the RCC but were not Augustinians nor Calvinistic in there beliefs."

I do not know what you have against Calvin or Augustine. The only thing I know they had in common is that the Bible reveals that all who are saved were predestined to be saved, as the Apostle Paul puts it, before God Created the Cosmos and the Kingdom, God predestined His children to purified in the fiery furnace of the Cosmos, and predestined His children to enter the Kingdom.

Jesus said His sheep knows him and they come to Him when they hear His voice. He assured the Father that He had not lost even one of His sheep.

Predestination is a fact. Some complainers against predestination say "why preach the gospel at if all are already predestination to be saved." We do so because Jesus gave us the Great Commision that we speak His words throughout the world, so that His children will hear their master's voice that they will recognize, and they will follow Him. This is the great commision given unto us.

Jesus-Is-God wrote "If I'm not mistaken - there were those before Luther and the others mentioned along the lines of Calvin - that broke from the RCC but were not Augustinians nor Calvinistic in there beliefs. That the breaking from the RCC would have happened even without them."

First of all, Luther was a a learned catholic, a well respected and popular Catholic Priest, who saw the abuses of the Catholic Chruch and spoke out against them.

So when Luther abondoned the Catholic Church, he opened the door for many catholics to have the courage to leave the Catholic Church, His marriage to a Nun had a great effect on the psyche of Catholics, the effect gave them the courage to leave the Catholic Church.

RE: josef83 wrote
"Firstly what I see today is mostly the "reformers" getting persecuted on bloggs and on the internet.
I have seen slanders on John Piper and on our church here in Sweden just because we are reformed. We dont attack back we just bless them."

I commend you for not attacking back and just blessing them.
I have to say from most of what I see has been just the opposit, just google Charles Finny and see what pops up. People believe just because he did not find that the Bible teaches the five points of the tulip that they have a justified reason to say he had a Demon.
Have you not heard someone called an
Arminian or a follower of pelagian just because they believe that Gods predestination follows His forknowledge and infinite wisdom?

RE:Josef83 wrote
"I mean Romans chapter 9 is so clear and 9:6 is so clear that it aint talking abous nations!"

I agree with you that it is not talking about nations, I believe that is a weak argument. But it also is not the central theme of Romans nor is it the central theme of the Bible as what Hypertheolgy teaches. Read Romans Ch 1-8 to give the context for ch 9 or even within chapter 9 Paul gives the (reason) that Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. v 32 "Wherefore? (Because!!!) they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law."
There is always a (reason) a (purpose) a (For this cause)a (because of) with God. We do not understand all of it but we know His purposes are perfect.
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

RE: josef83 wrote "Fourthly. The reformers were wrong on the doctrine of baptism because they stil had alot of tradition in their head."

They Did more than just disagree with those that believed in believers Baptism!

Re: ArtB wrote
"So what happened to Luther as he got older so that he became a madman, viciously hating the Jews and calling for their death. Luther became all around bitter, hateful, and violent.
The answer is medical!"

Does the Bible associate psychological issues with medical or with spiritual??

It's helped me to understand and hear things about the reformation which I hadn't known. Thanks for starting it.

I wonder why there is a need to take sides – to form a one-sided opinion – to either agree or disagree with people – to accept or reject. Is it necessary? It may be that we have more in common with the ones we disagree with than the ones we see ourselves agreeing with.

Why take sides at all? Why not allow all of them – along with the good and the bad, to teach us something about history/political thought, culture etc, and even to help us understand ourselves better.

One surprising discovery I made about the reformations is the propensity they had to make the preservation of the church as an institution their priority. Keeping (perceived) evil out was often more important than that each person grow in the gifts of grace. In that sense, nothing has changed even today.

The reformers were wrong on the doctrine of baptism because they stil had alot of tradition in their head.

This is a good point. No one begins in a vacuum from a blank mind. The reformers had to deal with the Mother Church, and in view of the scope of the issues they wrestled with, we can surely appreciate the limitations. Yes, many traditions remained lodged in their heads – to a fault.

Of course it’s always easier to see another person’s faulty presumptions than our own – especially if they are from another era. And really, why would we ourselves be any different? Surely we have a number of well-embedded traditions and doctrines that we ardently cling to – even if biblical support is precariously sparse.

One more thought: In the bigger picture, could it not be that the reformers, in spite of their failings, paved the way for later revivals?

Diane

RE: roadsign wrote
"One more thought: In the bigger picture, could it not be that the reformers, in spite of their failings, paved the way for later revivals? "

I think the answer is obvious. and one to be commended.

Proudpapa>

Well Finney is different than Wesley. Ravenhill, Tozer etc..
If Finney taught that Jesus did not satisfy the wrath of God in the cross then I can understand why the reformers dont like him.

http://youtu.be/GH29Tr7bAN0

Its Finney he is quoting. So Then I understand all the critiques coming from the reformers on that view on the atonement.

proudpapa on 2012/5/31 9:28:16

"Re: ArtB wrote
"So what happened to Luther as he got older so that he became a madman, viciously hating the Jews and calling for their death. Luther became all around bitter, hateful, and violent.
The answer is medical!"

Does the Bible associate psychological issues with medical or with spiritual??"

Tourettes Syndrome is clearly a medical caused disease. In medeival times such a person would probably burned alive for being demon possessed.

I would not just say that Luther became bitter, hateful, and violent. I would add that Luther's mind became disoriented due to an extreme case of tinnitis, which could not be treated in the 16th Century, and his thinking became irrational and paranoid. And this lead him to write awful and hateful things emanating from his no longer rationale mind. He had become very mentally sick. As I stated before, he hired a bodyguard, not to protect himself, but to protect others in his presence from his violent outbreaks. Luther was well aware that he was mentally sick. Yet he kept writing very awful things because his disoriented mind deceived him. The longer Luther had Menieres Disease, the more vicous his writing became.

I'm not an MD, I would prefer a Medical Doctor whi is a Christian to answer your question,

Proud Papa you wrote:

"RE:Josef83 wrote
"I mean Romans chapter 9 is so clear and 9:6 is so clear that it aint talking abous nations!"

I agree with you that it is not talking about nations, I believe that is a weak argument. But it also is not the central theme of Romans nor is it the central theme of the Bible as what Hypertheolgy teaches. Read Romans Ch 1-8 to give the context for ch 9 or even within chapter 9 Paul gives the (reason) that Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. v 32 "Wherefore? (Because!!!) they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law."

I think corporate election is pretty clear here.For example In verse 21 of chapter 9 we read :

21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

This verse is quoting from Jeremiah 18 which reads

1This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2“Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6“O house of Israel(notice this is plural), can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.(plural again) 7If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom(plural again) is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8and if that nation (plural again) I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom(plural yet again) is to be built up and planted, 10and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Notice the use of the words “nation” or “kingdom” and the phrase “O house of Israel”

They’re all plural because they’re not talking about a individual’s salvation, but rather the corporate election of Israel the nation.

Now in Romans 9 we see this quoted, so my question to you is: Is God changing the meaning of Jeremiah 18 in quoting it in Romans 9 to mean individual election?

Tying this together with verse 6 Paul states that not all of ethnic Israel is spiritual Israel. This same concept applies to the church right now, not everyone is saved that goes to bible believing churches. Wouldn’t you agree?

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you,

Russ

KrispyKrittr on 2012/5/30 7:29:12, wrote:

"The Reformers also took the Bible away from the clergy and put it in the hands of the people to read and interpret for themselves. As a result a mass exodus (no pun intended!) from the Catholic Church began."

Krispy, Nice post Overall!

And you must give a lot of credit to the invention of the printing press. People began to actually read the Bible for themselves, and their Catholic indoctrination did not at all match what the Bible revealed about true salvation.

It is no accident that the invention of the printing press shortly preceded the reformation. Prior to the invention printing press, some reformers were making copies of the Bible by hand. Though that was admirable, the very few hand written copies of the Bible severely limited who could get their hands on the Bible and read and study the Bible.

Re: rnieman. Thank you, I have never heard Romans 9 put that clear with the context of corporate election.

I asked "Does the Bible associate psychological issues with medical or with spiritual??"

RE: ArtB wrote "Tourettes Syndrome is clearly a medical caused disease. In medeival times such a person would probably burned alive for being demon possessed."

You avoided the question I asked what the Bible says?? I care less what Modern medicine believes!!

RE: ArtB wrote
"I would not just say that Luther became bitter, hateful, and violent. I would add that Luther's mind became disoriented due to an extreme case of tinnitis, which could not be treated in the 16th Century, and his thinking became irrational and paranoid."

You have revealed more about Luther than I had any Idea of.

Just because a man looses his mind does not excuse anything people loose there minds all the time what is left is what they are, They no longer have the clothes to hide it. Many are more loving and caring than they where before, others suprise us. once the mind is gone all that is left is the inner man would you disagree??

Dear Jesus-is-God,

I always respect your views.

My views on Luther's Meniere's Disease was from several medical reports that I read on the on the internet, but not from Wikipedia. They proclaimed Luther as an extreme example. How valid these comments were is beyond my ability to assess them.

I have, on occasion, had short bouts of internal ringing in my ears that lasted a very short time. It felt like my ear was looking for that sound and provided it. It did not come from anywhere else. I ignored it and it went away.

Based on what I had read about Luther from His thoughtful caring early writings to his insane horrific later writings, that the extreme extent of his sickness may explain his descent into madness.

Personally, I am not qualified to give any medical opinions. I thank you for your input related thereto.

I do believe that Luther opened the door for many Catholics to leave Catholicism in order to get back to the Bible as per his own example.

RE: ArtB wrote
"Based on what I had read about Luther from His thoughtful caring early writings to his insane horrific later writings"

I have to say, I did not no much about the Reformers up untill the last couple of years and since that time it seems every time That I study about them something more disturbing is revealed, But I have noticed early on with the reformers they wrote a lot of good things and undoubtly there is a certain respect that they deserve.
We will never understand the spirtual forces that must have done everything it could to destroy them.

"Jesus-is-GOD on 2012/5/31 20:03:1 wrote:

"Hi Brother Art. Oh, no doubt that Luther did well. The video that was a dramatization of his life certainly convinced me of that.

My main concern was for the growing numbers of people that are developing tinnitis and Meniere's and that because of the tremendous increase of neurotoxins in our environment - that they don't get the wrong impression ... ."

Yes, I've caught on to this in your last post. I did not mean to cause a panic. My reading also led me to believe that it is quite treatable today. I am trying to backtrack based on what you shared. I do appreciate your very thoughtful posts on this matter.

Thanks for your post, proudpapa. Yes the early reformers got the ball rolling to a back to the Bible and the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

However, I really like the works of today's apologists such as Packer, Tozer, Norman Geisler, Walter Kaiser, and others.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/tinnitus/DS00365

Although bothersome, tinnitus usually isn't a sign of something serious. Although it can worsen with age, for many people, tinnitus can improve with treatment. Treating an identified underlying cause sometimes helps. Other treatments reduce or mask the noise, making tinnitus less noticeable.

http://www.tinnituscare.net/research.html

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/tinnitus/page7_em.htm

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8199469

http://www.tinnitus.vcu.edu/Pages/Papers.html 2005
Read discussion page 19

http://www.ccjm.org/content/78/5/312.full

How tinnitus is treated by managing TMD

Tinnitus can be treated by managing TMD, specifically through the use of dental orthotics (splints, nightguards) to improve abnormal jaw mechanics and tracking.23–25

Tullberg and Ernberg26 treated patients with TMD and tinnitus using a variety of methods, including occlusal splinting, jaw muscle exercises, and relaxation. They reported that 43% of the patients experienced an improvement in their tinnitus after these interventions.

... etc.

Also:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/10/42/abstract

http://www.theresia-altrock.de/texte/abstracts.html

The next URL is Research Protocol – Feb. 22, 2012

Evaluation and Treatment of Tinnitus: A Comparative Effectiveness Review

http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productid=811

I'll leave at these. Again, I am in no way qualified to analyze or offer a credible opinion on the above treatments. But reports like these lead me to believe there are treaments for Tinnitus.

I can remove this post once you copy it.

QUOTE: "The protestant reformers persecuted and put to death those I consider the true believers of Jesus Christ."==BEARMASTER

Bearmaster, i am really at a loss to know what you are talking about. Martin Luther never put to death anyone. Neither did Calvin.

You state that the reformers were unbiblical but you haven't given any support for that statement, so i have no clue what you mean. Luther rebelled against the false doctrines of the Catholic church. What was unbiblical about that?

EDIT: Well, after some research on Calvin i find that there is a great deal of controversy about his life. As for the death of Michael Servantus, Calvin approved of his prosecution for heresy (Servantus denied the Trinity) but sought mercy for him when he was sentenced by the court to death by burning in that he asked for beheading instead of burning but the court denied the request and the man was burned alive instead. As i read about Calvin and the churches at that time i am left with the impression of a religious spirit...but that may just be my impression, i don't know.

Dear Jesus-is-God

May God bless you and heal you. I hope you checked out the other url's, particularly the last one, when you get a chance.

Trekker wrote:

"Bearmaster, i am really at a loss to know what you are talking about. Martin Luther never put to death anyone. Neither did Calvin."

With all due respect for Calvin as a reformer and a man used by God to advance his kigdome , Im not prejudiced to deny the historical truth conserning his case. The truth of the matter is, he is guilty in consenting to the death of a heretic called Servetus, for those who want facts from original sourses here they are:

Calvin had some personal issues with Servetus,in a letter to William Farel he wrote:

"Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive (Latin: Si venerit, modo valeat mea autoritas, vivum exire nunquam patiar).[1]

The only disagreement with the others who were for his execution, was that Calvin wanted decapitation and the rest wanted the "unitarian" heretic to be burned at stake.

"I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him; but I desired that the severity of the punishment be mitigated." [2]

"not permit him go alive" - Here is his intention made clear in his own words. We fotget that he lived in a non-tolerant age who was religiously fanatic. To show his devotion to orthodox christianity and his zeal against a heretic, he gave his consent and contributed by his influence to the execution of a man, just because he was a heretic.

Immagine what would have happend today if an influencial evangelical leader was pro and supported the execution of a Jehovas Witness or a Oneness pentecostalism, because they denied trinity?. We all will think this man is "out of his mind". Calvin and Luther lived in an age of non-tolerance and fanaticism and christians should take in account these historical circumstances and be as impartial as possible.

[1] Durant, Story of Civilization,2

[2] Calvin to William Farel, August 20, 1553, Bonnet, Jules (1820–1892) Letters of John Calvin, Carlisle, Penn: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980, pp. 158–159.)

Would simply seeking to follow the Lord Jesus be the best solution to this thread, I mean why declare that you follow after one side or the other why not simply declare to follow Jesus all the days of your life?

I often think about the way some pull out the words of another from years ago and use them to discount everything that person has said or done. I think it causes me to be very thoughtful and careful about what I post. Who know at some future date someone might come along and take away a few lines of what I said and declare things about me to. Something to think about, what we say and type does matter.

rdg

Brethren we must realize that there is ugliness and bad things in everybody's past. What we need to do is praise and thank God for the light of Jesus Christ and what he has shown and forgiven us for in spite of our past sins.

There is not a person on earth other than Jesus who has not had to come to more light and realize he was wrong about some things but God is ever teaching us and renewing us to be conformed to the image of His Son.

We read about things people said and did in their past but what we don't realize is that the mistakes that many have made how they prayed and asked God for forgiveness.

I will go on record to say that Spurgeon, Wesley, Finney, and many others have said and wrote things in their past that later on they received more light from the Lord and realized that they were wrong about some things.

Brethren we are not to be followers of men but the Lord and His truth and when we read after any men we must realize that everything he said or did was not inspired of God because he is human. We need wisdom from God to be able receive from the Holy Spirit the inspiration so that we can be taught in the Word.

@ Krispy-

Hey Krispy. Steak dinner offer still stands brother. How's the fishing in your neck of the woods this summer? Catching lot's of walleye and bass here.

Although I am gaining appreciation for your much more constructive posting I must still draw attention to this idea you put forth.

Krispy, you state,

If we're going to be honest about history... then lets be honest.

While I certainly agree with the words but it does not seem you are willing to abide by them in the case of Calvin. There are more than ample records of his reign of terror. However, just to "be fair and honest" let's look at just a few of HIS OWN WORDS.

Calvin states

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church." John Calvin

He clearly in his own words states that those who are "heretics" should BE PUT TO DEATH. As you well know it was by HIS definition that he defined "heretic" and included any who disagreed with him on infant baptism as such. He clearly in his own words states that you should be killed for disagreeing with him on infant baptism or anything he deemed heresy.

In his own words, in the quote, we additionally see that if you did not agree with him on the need to murder folks for disagreeing with him on minute theological points YOU should be put to death also.

So.. Krispy. Calvin in his own words wants to kill those who disagree with him theologically and also kill those who think he shouldn't be murdering folks over a minor theological disagreement. IN CALVIN'S OWN WORDS.

Krispy... if we are going to be honest about history then let's be honest. Calvin clearly wanted any who disagreed with him murdered. He also wanted any that did not like it murdered as well. Honestly.

Oh, and lastly this. As to your thoughts that Calvin was not instrumental in the cold blooded murderous execution of Servetus. Again, FROM CALVIN"S OWN MOUTH

From Calvin's Letter to the Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre, 1561.

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others], who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, AS I HAVE EXTERMINATED Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

No doubt about it. In Calvin's own mind and words.. HE EXTERMINATED Servetus ....not the courts, etc. In his mind HE DID IT.. GLADLY! All for not being sufficiently trinitarian or thinking infant baptism was appropriate.

Aside from Calvin, hope you have a great Friday!

Blessings.

Calvin did actually try to work with Servetus to correct his theology but after Servetus returned a copy of Calvin's Institutes all marked up with what Servetus thought was error, Calvin changed his tacticts with Servetus. Now it does have to be noted that heresy was considered a high crime of which the penalty was typically death. That aside, I turn to the anabaptists and see them being slaughtered for the sake of not conforming to this world. But I struggle with how Calvin and how he handled this. In our time Homosexual clergy is an issue, should we bow the knee to this and allow it or fight against it. Obviously fight against it, but how do we do this, do we put to death people that hold to an opposing view.

On October 27, 1553 Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal beliefs!(1), one of which beliefs was against infant baptism. John Calvin wrote his friend, Farel, on February 13, 1546 (seven years prior to Michael Servetus' arrest) and went on record as saying:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."(2)
During Servetus' trial, John Calvin wrote:
"I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."(5)

1."On only two counts, significantly, was Servetus condemned -- namely, anti-Trinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism." Roland H. Bainton, Hunted Heretic(The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 207.

2.Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Baker Book House, 1950), p. 371.

5.Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 328.

I seriously wonder about Calvin. I'm not trying to start fights just my opinion, and something that I wonder. Could be worth nothing I seriously wonder if Calvin fit 2 Timothy 3:5

5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these

We are not followers of Calvin, Luther, or any other man - with the sole exception of Jesus Christ.

Reading my Bible, I came to the conclusion that God Predestined His chidren from the very begining when He made the Cosmos and the Kingdom. I used both the Greek and the Hebrew to ascertain that the English words I read matched the meaning of the original writings.

Expressing my understanding of these things, some Christians called me a Calvinist, even though I had never read the writings of Calvin. Why read Calvin when I have God's word, the Bible. However, I simply thought that Calvin must have gotten it right on predestination.

Now I am reading in the post above that Calvin wanted Servetus dead for his belief against infant baptism - "heresy, lets kill Servetus" Calvin says. If this be correct, then I am definitely not a Calvinist. In this matter, Calvins' view is postively anti-the Biblical and Christ's teachings.

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,in order that you maybe sons of your Father who is in Heaven; For He causes the sun to rise on the good and the bad; And sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax gatherers do the same. And if you greet your brothers only, what more do you do? Do not gentiles do the same." Matt 5:44-48

I'm going to follow Jesus, not Calvin.

Proverbs 19:11 A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense.

Proverbs 25:21: If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

Luke 6:27 - 28 Jesus: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."

Stephen's words as he was being stoned: Acts 7:60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Romans 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

James 2:13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Luke 6:36 - 37 Jesus: "Be Merciful just as your heavenly father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

My full allegiance is to Jesus only. I am His follower. Others may have helpful ideas, food for thought, but I will always return to the Bible in context, for validation.