Welcome to the Netherlands Reformed Church. Got Assurance?

How do you know if you are a Christian? For the Arminian folks, it boils down to the question, how do you know if you really and truly accepted Christ as your personal Lord and savior? The Reformed though have to grapple with whether or not Christ has died for someone particularly. That is, how do you know if you’re actually one of elect?

Over the past few years I've engaged people in conversation about the assurance of salvation. In my own circle, it's because I've come into contact with people from the Netherlands Reformed Church, as well as people who've come into contact with people from the Netherlands Reformed Church. The NRC is a small denomination (one website claims there are only 26 congregations in North America), yet in my area, if you're Reformed, chances are you've come into contact with these folks.

Trying to track down online information specific to this group can be a little tricky. If you rely on such things like Wikipedia (shame on you!) you could easily be confused by the entries on Netherlands Reformed Churches and Netherlands Reformed Congregations. The former claims of these churches, "Some are very traditional; others are more heavily influenced by contemporary evangelical practices, having replaced traditional Dutch organ music with praise bands. Also, the synod of the Netherlands Reformed Churches have recently allowed women to serve as deacons, elders and pastors, although most local churches don't allow this." The later entry says, "Most of the member churches have services two or three times per Sunday.... During worship the congregation remains silent and respectful. Women wear headcoverings in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11." My comments here are in regard to the later described Dutch churches. I can assure you, the NRC I'm describing wants nothing to do with praise bands or allowing women to serve in church leadership.

In what follows below I'm going to state upfront that I don't really have anything positive to say about the NRC other than this: her members appear to be very hard-working honest (predominantly) Dutch people that show an outward respect for the Christian faith.


First Encounters With the NRC
I first came into contact with NRC kids back in high school. There were two large NRC families in my town. Both were involved with farming and agriculture, Where I live, this is like putting Little House on the Prairie in an area headed towards Hill Street Blues. Some of the NRC families were in my area when it still had farming and agriculture, so their businesses have been around a long time, as relics from a previous era.

In school, the NRC kids were typically like everyone else. There was nothing noticeably different about them except for one thing: they didn't watch TV (nor did their families admit to owning TVs). So, if they were to come over your house, chances are, they would be glued to your TV. Nowadays, the NRC kids in my area do not have to exclusively attend public school because they've built their own private NRC school. They also have smart phones and computers to bypass the TV restrictions if they so chose.

One of my first jobs as a teenager was stocking shelves in a large fabric shop. I was warned by the kid vacating the job to be careful around the manager, a "religious" woman named Priscilla, especially in regard to language. For instance, I learned that saying something like  "jeez" or "gee wiz" was a blasphemous way of saying "Jesus Christ." The woman was one of the meanest people I recall interacting with as a kid. There was never a smile, and however I did the job, it was never good enough. When she found out I was from a Christian family, it didn't make a dent. This woman was from the NRC.  

Another thing I recall about the NRC folks was that they were strict sabbatarians. My mother used to do weekend arts and crafts shows with an NRC woman, and like Chariots of Fire, this woman would never do a show on a Sunday. From my teenage perspective, these Dutch folks were strict and little weird, but other than that, I never gave them much thought.

Fast forward a number of years later to when as an adult I joined a Reformed church. Like many people with convert-zeal, I was ready to slay anything that even remotely smelled like Arminian or Roman Catholic theology. There was a "getting to know you" church luncheon I attended. In conversation with one of the long-time church members, she explained she did not take communion. Startled, I asked her if the church had strict closed communion practices.  It didn't. As we went back and forth, I explained how the Reformers went to war with Rome so people could take both the bread and the cup. Now here was an old Reformed woman who told me she took neither. Turns out, she was an NRC refugee. Even though she had left the denomination, she still had not escaped from the theology of the denomination. She had been raised with the notion that communion was taken only when one had assurance of salvation, otherwise one is partaking in an unworthy and damning manner. This woman did not have assurance of salvation, even after being in a Christian church her entire life.

The NRC Sunday Service
Fast forward again to last summer. After some badgering from a friend, I actually attended an NRC Sunday morning service. I sat in one of the first pew rows up front, which was a mistake (I did not pick the seat). It was unfortunate I ended up so close to the front because part of the experience of visiting a church is seeing how the people respond to the liturgy. Are they sleeping? Are they on the edge of the pew waiting for God? I've been told by a few ex-NRC folks that many of the people attending the services are mentally checked out. Perhaps they are, I don't know. The people around me didn't really display any noticeable emotions. Even their young children did not make a sound during the entire service. I didn't see anyone carry a Bible into the church (I brought mine).

The people attending were dressed sharply, with the women all putting on what only can be described as a hat fashion show. I had not realized how fashionable and different women's hat-wear could be. I was informed by my friend that a shirt and tie was fine, suit jacket not required. Yes, it turned out I was one of the only people not wearing a suit jacket. So there I was, without a suit jacket, carrying a Bible. I might as well have worn a Led Zeppelin t-shirt carrying a Hello Kitty lunchbox.

You walk into a completely quiet church. No one made a sound, not even in the foyer.  When the service starts, the elders and minster walk out from a side door at the front. All the elders stand in the front row while the minister approaches the pulpit, gets on his knees, and begins praying. The elders appear to be praying as well, and one by one they sit down, and the minster steps up into the pulpit. This sort of respect for a church service can either be positive or negative depending on your perspective. For those who see it as a positive, it's refreshing to see the leaders of a church praying (apparently for the service). On the other hand, for those who see it as a negative, such behavior could show a spiritual elitism. In other words, the men in charge of the church have assurance of salvation and have had their prayers heard by God- unlike you, the sinner in the pew, who hasn't really repented of sin and achieved assurance of salvation.

The minster went into the pulpit and leads the services, hymns and prayers. Then he read from the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 2:

Q. 3.Whence knowest thou thy misery?
A.Out of the law of God.

Q. 4. What does the law of God require of us?
A. Christ teaches us that briefly, Matt. 22:37-40, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Q. 5.Canst thou keep all these things perfectly?
A.In no wise; for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbor.

I thought that this reading of the Catechism was simply a part of the liturgy. Yes it was, but I had not realized it was the entrance into the sermon. It turns out that every week the sermon begins with a reading of something from the Heidelberg Catechism, and then for the next hour, the Catechism reading is expounded on.  That's the sermon. The context for the sermon is the Catechism, not a passage of Scripture.  For the next hour, the minster expounded on the depravity of man, rarely mentioning Jesus, rarely mentioning even a Bible verse. I saw no one around me crack open a Bible or even the Heidelberg Catechism. In fairness to the congregation, there really wasn't a need to. Bible chapters were not be expounded upon, nor were verses being pastorally exegeted.

The point made over and over again in this Catechism sermon was how depraved we all were, and how now is the time to cry out for God's mercy. If I were to just type my previous sentence one hundred times, that was the sermon in essence. At one point, my mind began wandering and I started looking up at the lights above me. The minister said something like, "This message is making some of you uncomfortable, and you're looking around." Yep, he caught me. I was uncomfortable for sure, but it was the discomfort of getting the point and being a bit bored.


NRC and Church Membership
After the service,  everyone leaves as quietly as they came in. No one approached us as visitors as we were leaving. Certainly the whole "seeker-sensitive" movement can go overboard, but these folks took it in an entirely different direction. It turns out that simply visiting from another church isn't necessarily a good thing. As I understand it, the NRC folks are not to visit other churches while a member of the NRC. So by extension, that I was a member of another church and I was simply visiting shows that neither me nor my church was as serious as the NRC.  On the one hand, one can't help but have some respect for people that take church membership so seriously. On the other hand, they appear to take it too far. While I'm not sure of the pedigree of the following information from this ex-NRC member, he states interestingly:

The practical implications of this vow are immense. If one makes a public Confession of Faith it means that they can never become a member of another church or denomination for the rest of their life. Even if a stronger, healthier church in your area existed that better fulfilled the spiritual needs of you and your family, it would not matter. In order to fulfill the vow that you made before God you are bound before Him to remain within the NRC fold. Furthermore, a single person desiring to get married either must find another person within the church who also has said the vow or someone outside the church who is also willing to make the vow. If there is no agreement in this area then the relationship must end no matter how compatible the two individuals are.   

And also:

After dialoging extensively with one NRC pastor about the vow, he shared one very revealing comment that shed a great deal of light on the issue. One of the reasons why the vow is necessary, he said, is that “People change churches as often as they change clothes.” I fully agree with this pastor that ‘church hopping’ - moving from church to church often for superficial reasons - is a lamentable characteristic of our day. The lack of commitment and devotion to one church body and a fetish for unbiblical elements in a church (coffee bars, entertainment of various sorts, etc.) often drives people from church to church seeking the latest thrill. This must break the heart of all who know and love God’s Word. The purpose of the Confession of Faith vow, according to this pastor, is to help instill a degree of devotion to the NRC church family as well as a measure of spiritual life.

Given my interactions with the NRC and her former members, I wouldn't be surprised that these statements are true. I know one former NRC person who married an Italian woman, but as I recall, she began to attend the NRC before they were married. The bottom line for me is that I respect their desire to have people committed to their church membership, but it goes a bit too far for me. The NRC gives off the impression of claiming to be the real church while other congregations simply pretend to be real churches.  


The NRC and Assurance
So with that background of personal experience, let me try to explain what I think is going on. These folks do exhibit outward piety and reverence for God. They appear to be very concerned about the holiness of God and the sinfulness of sin. Kudos to that.. in theory.

In order to have assurance of salvation, their lives have to display holiness (so as to be evaluated by the church leadership) and they also have to have an inward testimony of God's Spirit assuring them of their salvation. If one of these is missing, you're not entitled to assurance of salvation. From a website I quoted previously, an ex-NRC member explains two characteristics of "true" NRC conversions:

Experiential Calvinism - This phenomena can also be described as “experimental religion”, “experimental faith”, or “experimental divinity”. All refer to the same thing and have a long history in Reformation theology. In a nutshell, these terms point to the importance of feelings and emotions in a genuine expression of faith in God. One author describes it as “examining or testing (from experiri) experienced knowledge by the touchtone of Scripture…” Counterfeit faith, on the other hand, either leaves emotions out (intellect only), or, if emotions are present, bases them upon false knowledge. The NRC views itself as one few remaining denominations preserving this essential truth handed down from the Reformation. 

Presumptive Regeneration - This is closely related to experiential faith. This phenomena refers to the danger of falsely assuming that one is saved when in fact they are not. The NRC is deeply grieved over the superficial nature of contemporary evangelicalism that so often has a false peace and joy growing out of a low view of sin and salvation. Many, according to Alexander Comrie, become Christians “with a skip and a jump” often resulting in multitudes of unconverted people joining the church. Dr. Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) is widely considered to be a leading figure introducing presumptive regeneration into the Dutch Reformed church. His view of salvation was related to his view of infant baptism. “[Kuyper] taught that God can and often does regenerate his elect as infants” and that “covenant parents are to presume that their covenant children are regenerate until they give prolonged and conscious evidence in their mature years that they are unregenerate.” Unfortunately, this leads many into a false sense of assurance regarding their salvation.

What some will probably consider mean-spirited, I refer to this sort of conversion description as a cosmic meatball experience. That is, one necessarily has to be hit with some sort of supernatural experience that produces an immediate feeling. Who determines if the experience and feelings are true? Why, I assume it's the leadership of the NRC. The thing is, for all their emphasis on the sinfulness of sin, the NRC cosmic meatball paradigm is fraught with practical problems, particularly for someone who really takes the sinfulness of sin seriously. That person realizes that even their best efforts are tainted with sin, that all their experiences are tainted with sin. This person can scrutinize in a such a way that the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man is a chasm that can never be crossed and every experience doubted. Sin is so insidious. Even for such people that continually scrutinize themselves, this itself can become sinful. Louis Berkhoff stated long ago,

There are always large numbers of serious seekers after assurance in our churches, who are tossed to and fro by doubts and uncertainties. Some of them appear to be chronic doubters, who occasionally create the impression that they take a secret delight in their doubts and regard them as a mark of special piety. [Berkhoff, L. The Assurance of Faith (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, Electronic edition].

 Second, the cosmic meatball paradigm sets up the same sort of problem that Pentecostals have in regard to plain ol' regular Christians and "Spirit-filled" superior Christians. In those circles, there are the elite Christians speaking in tongues and prophesying, and then there are the regular Spirit-less folks praying to have the same sort of experience. Now, the Spirit-less folks are doing what? Coveting to be Spirit-filled like the "real Christians." Similarly with the NRC paradigm, spiritual elitism has to necessarily follow. There must be some people who wish they could be a Christian like the person hit by the cosmic meatball experience. In other words, the very paradigm being used leads to a sinful elitist spirituality. I would say it probably produces jealousy (or even anger) in the have nots, and pride in the haves.

The problem with outward displays of works and holiness as a determiner for NRC assurance also has some problems. Certainly, there is a balanced way in which Christians behave and act a particular way that is to be expected from someone wishing to have their life conformed to the image of Christ. On the other hand, if I scrutinize my best works, guess what I can find? Sin, and lots of it.

Possible Answers on Assurance
As far as I understand my own Reformed heritage, there have been tendencies to see works as the assurance of faith. I've sat though sermons that are more law than Gospel, sometimes thinking, where is the Gospel? Is the Gospel just... try harder? On the other hand, the last thing I want is blatant antinomianism. Balance, balance, balance: An easy word to say, but not always an easy ideal to achieve.  I'm a simple guy at church: I need to be convicted of sin, comforted by the Gospel, and admonished to be daily conformed to the image of Christ. If any of these three aspects is missing, balance, for me at least, has not been achieved.

Obviously the entire thrust of this blog entry is that the NRC is off-balance. In dialog with ex-NRC members or those struggling with assurance, here's the basic answer I give. If someone is looking inward at themselves and outward at themselves, well, I think a truly honest look will lead to despair and lack of assurance of salvation. This may get me in trouble with some of my Reformed brethren, but if there's anything I've concluded from my Luther studies, it is that assurance of salvation primarily comes by looking outward toward Jesus Christ. When I look inward, I see my best efforts tainted by sin. When I look outward, I see my best efforts tainted by sin. When I look outward towards a perfect righteousness that is not my own, I find comfort in the cross and the righteousness of Christ, producing an inward experience of assurance that however it is I feel, or whatever it is I've done, the promises are those coming from God. In my worst moments of unbelief (and yes, I have them), I pray simply to be covered in Christ's righteousness because therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.  I say the Westminster Larger Catechism is entirely correct when it says of assurance that it "may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions; yet are they never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair."  In my moments of "utter despair" I remind myself that I am covered in a righteousness that's not mine, and I hold God to his word: What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God- through Jesus Christ our Lord!  

The Watchtower: Martin Luther—The Man and His Legacy

I recently came across the following statement, "It is said that more books have been written about [Martin Luther] than anyone else in history, save his own master, Jesus Christ." It's probably a true statement, but I was curious to see the source, so I followed the link given back to, of all things, a Watchtower Online Library article entitled, Martin Luther—The Man and His Legacy. So, let's see what the Jehovah's Witnesses have to say about Luther.

Not surprisingly, the article is barely documented, so it isn't completely clear what sources the Watchtower used. There are a number of quotes throughout the article. Some appear to be spurious (or at least re-written) at worst or from obscure sources at best. The statement that originally led me to this article appears to come from a 1967 Time Magazine article.

Surprisingly, the article is quite favorable to Luther. For example:

"Luther’s words and actions helped give birth to the Reformation—a religious movement described as 'the most significant revolution in the history of mankind.'"

"His translation of the Bible remains by far the most popular in the German language."

"In 1525, Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora, a former nun. Katharina was good at managing household affairs and was equal to the demands of her husband’s generosity. Luther’s household came to include not only a wife and six children but also friends, scholars, and refugees."

And they attempt balance by pointing out some of the negatvies of Luther:

His later essays became increasingly severe. According to the Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Luther’s works reveal the “excessiveness of his anger” and a “lack of humility and love,” as well as a “highly developed sense of mission.”

When the Peasants’ War broke out and the principalities were bathed in blood, Luther was asked for his judgment on the uprising. Did the peasants have just cause for complaint against their feudal lords? Luther did not try to secure popular support by giving an answer pleasing to the majority. He believed that God’s servants should obey those in power. (Romans 13:1) In a forthright judgment, Luther said that the revolt should be put down with force. “Let whoever can, stab, strike, kill,” he said. Hanns Lilje remarked that this answer cost Luther “his hitherto unique popularity among the people.” Furthermore, Luther’s later essays on those Jews who refused to convert to Christianity, particularly On the Jews and Their Lies, have caused many to brand the author anti-Semitic.

Martin Luther had a sharp intellect, a prodigious memory, a mastery of words, and a prolific work ethic. He was also impatient and scornful, and he reacted vehemently to what he viewed as hypocrisy.

What I looked for as I read the article was how it gave testimony to the distinctives of the Watchtower. For instance, the Watchtower article mentions justification. Note the following snippets:

Luther considered himself unworthy of God’s favor and was at times driven to despair by a guilty conscience. But Bible study, prayer, and meditation helped him to gain a better understanding of how God views sinners. Luther recognized that God’s favor cannot be earned. Rather, it is granted through undeserved kindness to those exercising faith.—Romans 1:16; 3:23, 24, 28.

The doctrine of justification, or salvation, by faith and not by works, or penance, remained a central pillar of Luther’s teachings.

The Reformation, spurred on by men like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, led to the formation of a new approach to religion called Protestantism. Luther’s major legacy to Protestantism was his central teaching of justification by faith.

Someone reading these statements quickly might find them within the realm of orthodoxy. Certainly it's true that Luther thought himself not worthy of God's favor. Certainly it's true that Luther had his evangelical breakthrough by "Bible study, prayer, and meditation." It is true that "Luther recognized that God’s favor cannot be earned." It is true that salvation is "by faith and not by works, or penance." What's missing from these statements is Luther's emphasis on the righteousness of Christ imputed to sinners (alien righteousness), and the word "alone," as in "faith alone." The majority of the article focuses on what Luther did: his works. Without stating it explicitly, the Watchtower has presented its soteriology: having faith in God and doing works.

One of the other implicit features of Watchtower theology is their inclusion of sections on Luther's Bible. his gifts as a translator, and an emphasis on the evils of the Roman church. The Watchtower sees their translation of the Bible as the end result of God's providence in preserving His word. In another Watchtower article you can see how "Jehovah Has Preserved His Word" from the opposition of Rome through such men like Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Luther.

One curious feature of the article is it's unqualified use of the term "Protestant":

The Reformation, spurred on by men like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, led to the formation of a new approach to religion called Protestantism. Luther’s major legacy to Protestantism was his central teaching of justification by faith. Each of the German principalities aligned itself with either the Protestant or the Catholic faith. Protestantism spread and gained popular support in Scandinavia, Switzerland, England, and the Netherlands. Today it has hundreds of millions of adherents.

The Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves "Protestants." See their explanation here: Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Protestant Religion?

Does the Watchtower actually think Luther was a proto-Jehovah's Witness? I don't know. A few years back I posted some comments from an old Watchtower publication in which Luther is cited as one of the "Lord's messengers" along with Charles Taze Russell. On the other hand, this link states

First, although Protestant faiths reject certain features of Catholic worship, Reformation leaders retained certain Catholic dogmas, such as belief in the Trinity, hellfire, and the immortality of the human soul. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, believe that those doctrines not only contradict the Bible but also promote a distorted view of God.

Addendum for the Defenders of Rome

Does this sound familiar?

Third, unlike the Protestant movement, which has splintered into hundreds of denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained a united global brotherhood. When it comes to Bible doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses in over 230 countries follow the apostle Paul’s counsel to “speak in agreement.” There are no divisions among them. Instead, they are genuinely “united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) They strive within their own ranks “to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace.”—Ephesians 4:3 [source]

Addendum #2 (4/5/15)
A response was offered to this blog entry: Beggars All and the Jehovah's Witnesses position concerning justification—yet another misrepresentation of a non-Reformed soteriology. The response was written by an ex-defender of Rome (if I recall correctly) with whom this blog has interacted with over the years. Of my interactions with this blogger, I've noticed the imprecise defining of theological positions (the very thing I'm being accused of with his latest response). For instance, in our previous interaction, the blogger thinks Luther held the "Roman church" is a true church, but failed to account for Luther's important distinction between the Roman church and the papal church. He used a quote without a context (that when read in context, demonstrates the distinction). Given Trent's later anathema of sola fide and sola scriptura (to name only two distinctives from Trent), it's not much of speculative stretch to say the papal church still lives on to this day.

In my entry on the Watchtower and Luther, I dissected whether or not the Luther being presented was the actual Luther of history. I noted that the Watchtower did present some accurate information. On the other hand, I attempted to demonstrate that Watchtower theological assumptions must be kept in mind when reading who they think Luther was. For instance, when Luther proclaimed justification by faith, does the Watchtower mean the same thing when it stated, "Luther recognized that God’s favor cannot be earned. Rather, it is granted through undeserved kindness to those exercising faith"? I would argue that the Watchtower's view of faith in relation to works, and faith and its relationship to the righteousness of Christ (Luther's "great exchange") are fundamentally different than what Luther held to. So in his present criticism, the blogger equates Luther's view of sola fide and the Watchtower's alleged view of sola fide, without actually presenting Luther's view of sola fide and comparing it to what he purports the Watchtower believes. Nor have I come across anything from the Watchtower in which they actually attempt to explain Luther's view in comparison to their own view. This hearkens back to what Walter Martin said decades ago about the cults- that they redefine the standard terms used to describe biblical truth [See, Martin's Kingdom of the Cults (Minnesota: Bethany House, 1985), chapter 2]. When a Jehovah's Witness rings a doorbell and says "Yes, we believe in justification by faith," I contend they mean something much different than what Luther promulgated.

For instance, the following quote was offered in rebuttal to me:

Finishing his earthly course free from flaw in any sense of the word, Jesus was acknowledged by God as justified. He was thus the only man, who through test, stood firmly and positively just, or righeous before God on his own merit. By this "one act of justification [form of di•kai'o•ma],"that is, by Jesus' proving himself perfectly righteous his entire flawless course, including his sacrifice, he provided the basis for declaring righteous those persons having faith in Christ.—Rom. 5:17-19; 3:25, 26; 4:25. [Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 437.]

The Watchtower makes this entire document available on line. There are a number of points made that would stand in opposition to Luther's theology. For instance, after the quote cited above, the Watchtower explains "Christ Jesus’ 'One Act of Justification'." Missing is any discussion of Christ taking upon himself the sin of the world (Luther's "great exchange"). Rather, the Watchtower says, "...[B]y Jesus’ proving himself perfectly righteous through his entire flawless course, including his sacrifice, he provided the basis for declaring righteous those persons having faith in Christ." Then comes the contrary view to Luther's:

Although Jehovah forgives their sins of fleshly weakness and imperfection, nevertheless, a conflict exists in these Christians, as illustrated in Paul’s letter to the Romans (7:21-25). It is between the law of their renewed mind (Ro 12:2; Eph 4:23), or “God’s law,” and “sin’s law” that is in their members. This is because their fleshly bodies are not perfected, even though they are counted righteous and their sins are forgiven. This conflict contributes to the test of their integrity toward God. They can win this conflict by the help of God’s spirit and with the assistance of their merciful High Priest, Christ Jesus. (Ro 7:25; Heb 2:17, 18) To win, however, they must constantly exercise faith in Christ’s ransom sacrifice and follow him, thus maintaining their righteousness in God’s eyes. (Compare Re 22:11.) Thereby they ‘make their calling and choosing sure’ for themselves. (2Pe 1:10; Ro 5:1, 9; 8:23-34; Tit 3:6, 7) If, on the other hand, they take up the practice of sin, falling away from the faith, they lose their favored standing before God as righteous persons because they “impale the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame.” (Heb 6:4-8) Such ones face destruction. (Heb 10:26-31, 38, 39) Thus, Jesus spoke of the sin that has no forgiveness, and the apostle John distinguished between the sin that “does not incur death” and the sin that “does incur death.”—Mt 12:31, 32; 1Jo 5:16, 17.

Now what's interesting about this quote also is it refers only to those who are "The followers of Jesus Christ who are called to be his spiritual brothers, with the prospect of being joint heirs with him in the heavenly Kingdom." If I recall JW theology, this refers to the original 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses. according to the Watchtower, since this number of people has already been fulfilled, the best today's Jehovah's Witnesses can hope for is to be numbered in the "great multitude." This document goes on to say of them:

The “great crowd,” who survive the “great tribulation,” are not yet declared righteous for life—that is, as worthy of the right to everlasting life on earth. They need to continue partaking of the “fountains of waters of life,” as guided by the Lamb, Christ Jesus. They will need to do this during the Millennial Reign of Christ. (Re 7:17; 22:1, 2) If they prove loyal to Jehovah through a final test at the end of the thousand years, they will have their names permanently retained in God’s book of life, Jehovah thus declaring, or acknowledging, that they finally are righteous in the complete sense.—Re 20:7, 8; see LIFE (Trees of Life).

I'm not entirely sure of the motivations of this blogger, but the application of equivocation to distinct theologies leads me to wonder if this particular person has embraced some form of a universal Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man approach to Christian theism (or perhaps theism in general).

The Real Story of the Reformation? Guest on Catholic Answers Says Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura Not Invented by Luther

This is another follow-up to my earlier post (and this post) on the recent Catholic Answers broadcast, The Real Story of the Reformation with Steve Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.

Here's an odd occurrence in this broadcast. For those of you involved with Roman Catholicism, you've probably heard the oft-repeated sentiment that Luther created sola fide and sola scriptura and that these doctrines did not exist previous to his alleged invention of them. For instance, Catholic Answers states, "The Bible nowhere uses the expressions 'justification by faith alone' or 'salvation by faith alone.' The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine." And also Catholic Answers has stated:

Some Christians claim, "The Bible is all I need," but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church. It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

So there you have it from two offerings from official pages from the Catholic Answers website. If you were to venture over to their discussion boards, it wouldn't be hard to multiply examples like this. Now here's where the odd occurrence comes in. At around 35 minutes into the broadcast, Professor Weidenkopf takes a question regarding the origins of sola fide and sola scriptura and if these were "Martin Luther creations." Based on his first 35 minutes of answers, I expected he would say Luther invented sola fide and sola scriptura.  At 36:21 minutes Professor Weidenkopf though gives the following answer:

And so, he wasn't the first individual who actually, uh, furthered these, er, proposed these doctrines. There were what we like to call in history the proto-Protestants. There were heretics before him, one in England by the name of John Wycliffe who lived in the 14th century and then also Jan Hus who was ah, a Bohemian heretic. Both of those individuals, John Wycliffe and John Hus also advocated sola fide and  sola scriptura, and railed against the church, and ah, advocated the changing of church teaching and even the getting rid of the church in many aspects in their own individual writings. So those individuals kind of um, began those teachings, and there were others who had those that heresy in mind as well, but why they come to be mostly associated with Luther is because he's the most vocal proponent of them. It's through his works and his writings and I should mention that Luther was a prodigious author, he wrote well over 400 500 some odd treatises in his lifetime, so many many many books, many many many pamphlets, he utilized the invention of printing by meta-movable type, and so his works were just, you know, um, published, printed, and spread all throughout Christendom, so that's why he again gets most of the credit, but they did do predate him, sola scriptura sola fide also brought further on by John Calvin in his work the Institutes of the Christian Religion where he attempts to try to systematize Protestant theology and give it some kind of form and give it more organization than what Luther had, but uh, but again, those doctrine... not his creation but he's definitely the main proponent of them.

Now I found this answer fascinating, especially when he stated, "So those individuals kind of um, began those teachings, and there were others who had those that heresy in mind as well." I don't recall ever interacting with one of Rome's defenders willing to admit there were people previous to Luther advocating sola scriptura and sola fide. It just goes to show that when it comes to Roman Catholicism and history, Rome's defenders can pick and choose which version of history one wants.

For a look at the Reformers before the Reformers, see my earlier posts:

Reformers Before the Reformers #1, The Supremacy of Scripture

Reformers Before the Reformers #2, The Marriage Analogy of Johann von Staupitz

Reformers Before the Reformers #3: The Sole Infallible Authority of the Scriptures


Addendum
I'm trying to decide whether or not to purchase Steve Weidenkopf's mp3 from Catholic Answers on The Reformation. Catholic Answers wants $9.95 for a 90 minute mp3 which appears to me to be overpriced (as are many of the products offered by Catholic Answers).  I also found an online blog interview with Steve Weidenkopf: Reformation: Myths and Revolution with the same sort of material as that presented on Catholic Answers.

Should Rome's Apologists Interpret?

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.  [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Well...  these statements need to be... interpreted...

The Real Story of the Reformation? Catholic Answers Explains Luther's Issue With Indulgences

This is a follow-up to my earlier post on the recent Catholic Answers broadcast, The Real Story of the Reformation with Steve Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. Previously I noted how Professor Weidenkopf began his interview by changing the term Reformation to "revolution." Along the same lines he goes on to consider Luther to be a revolutionary bent on overthrowing the Roman Church. He implied that the indulgence controversy was the issue in which this could be achieved.

 Weidenkopf  appears to defend the concept of indulgences, particularly the rebuilding of St. Peter's by the giving of "charitable contributions" towards its rebuilding through the selling of indulgences, thus downplaying the whole scandal behind indulgences. St. Peter's was falling apart, and needed to be rebuilt. The revenue from the indulgences helped fund this papal project. Weidenkopf doesn't appear to be interested in some of the more scandalous facts- like how some of the indulgence money for St. Peter's made its way to Leo X's private treasury, "...for he needed enormous sums for his private pleasures, especially his passion for cards, which he played every day" (Heinrich Bohemer, Road to Reformation, Martin Luther to the Year 1521 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), p. 175). The Catholic Answers listeners didn't get any those sort of facts.

Professor Weidenkopf  does mention quickly in passing "the less than forthcoming" methods of some of the indulgence preachers, noting in half a breath that "Luther kind of latched on to that," but the explanation as to why Luther was bothered by indulgences was more economic than anything else. According to Weidenkopf, Luther was influenced by and part of a nationalist movement seeking economic and political freedom from Rome. What caused Luther's reaction to the selling of indulgences? For Professor Weidenkopf the main factors provoking Luther were economical:

...He was upset that this revenue from Germany was going to be sent down to Rome to build up St. Peter's... Luther had previously visited Rome earlier in his life as a monk and he was just kind of horrified at the excess and the immorality that he saw in Rome, even among unfortunately, some of the clergy there, and so when this indulgence preaching came about in his diocese that was kind of the spark so to speak that moved him to act.(listen starting at 6 min)

The picture of Luther put forth by Professor Weidenkopf is of a man who began by challenging papal power and whose cause against indulgences was based on financial exploitation. This picture of Luther would make perfect sense if indeed Luther was primarily a nationalist revolutionary. Certainly national and financial factors did matter to Luther, but were they the earliest factors which provoked Luther? Was Luther primarily concerned about German money going to Rome?

Luther's biographer Heinrich Boehmer points out that early on, it was largely pastoral concern which motivated Luther. In his book, Road to Reformation, Martin Luther to the Year 1521 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), Bohemer states, "But as early as 1515 Luther was troubled more by the evil effects of indulgence preaching and the indulgence traffic upon the religious and moral life of the indulgence purchaser than by the base motives for granting indulgences (p. 176). Bohemer goes through two of the earliest sermons from Luther in which he mentions indulgences.

The first was delivered on a day that was especially appropriate for such instruction, namely on the eve of the great indulgence festival in the castle church on October 31, 1516. The indulgence, he already argued here, is nothing more than the remission of the canonical penalties imposed upon the penitent by the priest at confession. However, it is to be feared that it often militates directly against true repentance, that is, the inner penitence of the heart which should pervade the whole life of the believer; for one who feels real remorse for his sins does not try to evade punishment, but rather actually longs for punishment. "Nevertheless, I affirm emphatically that the purpose which the pope has in view is good- at least as far can be ascertained from the wording of the indulgence Bulls" (pp. 176-177).

The second sermon of note was from February 24, 1517:

Here he charged that the wholesale distribution of indulgences results only in causing the people to fight shy of punishment All too little of the blessings of indulgences is to be observed; rather there is a sense of security from punishment and a tendency to take sin lightly. Hence, he said, indulgences are well named, for they indulge the sinner. At best, absolution is suitable for people who are weak in the faith and who are easily frightened by punishment into doing penance. With the rest it has only the effect of preventing them from ever receiving the true absolution- divine forgiveness of sins- and hence they never come to Christ. "O how great are the perils of our times! How fast asleep are the priests! O what worse than Egyptian darkness are we in! How safety and securely we go on living in the midst of the most grievous sins!" (p. 177).

The first sermon doesn't appear to have been translated into English yet (it can be found in WA 1:94). It's possible as well that Bohemer is wrong on the 1516 date (see note #76 here. Brecht posits it may be from early March, 1517. See his full discussion on pages 186-188; 522). Regardless of the dates these sermons were previous to the posting of the 95 Theses. The February 24 sermon is available in LW 51:26 ( WA 1:138–142). Luther closes the sermon saying,

Then in addition, the very profusion of indulgences astonishingly fills up the measure of servile righteousness. Through these nothing is accomplished except that the people learn to fear and flee and dread the penalty of sins, but not the sins themselves. Therefore, the results of indulgences are too little seen but we do see a great sense of self-security and licentious sinning; so much so that, if it were not for the fear of the punishment of sins, nobody would want these indulgences, even if they were free; whereas the people ought rather to be exhorted to love the punishment and embrace the cross. Would that I were a liar when I say that indulgences are rightly so called, for to indulge means to permit, and indulgence is equivalent to impunity, permission to sin, and license to nullify the cross of Christ. Or, if indulgences are to be permitted, they should be given only to those who are weak in faith, that those who seek to attain gentleness and lowliness through suffering, as the Lord here says, may not be offended. For, not through indulgences, but through gentleness and lowliness, so says he, is rest for your souls found. But gentleness is present only in punishment and suffering, from which these indulgences absolve us. They teach us to dread the cross and suffering and the result is that we never become gentle and lowly, and that means that we never receive indulgence nor come to Christ. Oh, the dangers of our time! Oh, you snoring priests! Oh, darkness deeper than Egyptian! How secure we are in the midst of the worst of all our evils! (LW 51:31-33).

I realize that Professor Weidenkopf was being interviewed and speaking "off the cuff." But it appears to me that he's picking and choosing what sort of Luther fits his preconceived paradigms of revolution and revolutionary, and this is the sort of Luther that those listening to Catholic Answers want to hear about. This isn't the way accurate history should be done.

Ballroom Dancing Lutherans

For those of you whose spouses have at some point badgered you into watching an hour (or more!) of Dancing with The Stars: here's an excerpt from A Sermon on Dancing by Rev. J.R. Sikes (Lutheran Church of Ashland) January 6, 1897:

II. THE RESULTS OF THE BALL ROOM.
 I. The Physical Results.—Injury to Health.
 I know that many argue that it is good for their health. I shall content myself at present with showing that the contrary is true. The mode of dressing for balls, the unnatural excitement, and the excessive exercise all tend to invite and develop disease. Cold is contracted, fever, rheumatism or consumption follows, and death often ensues as thee result. I have a case in point. Some years ago a young lady of, amiable disposition and the daughter of wealthy parents received and invitation to a ball. It was her first invitation; It came from a highly respectable young man whom she highly esteemed and very much desired to please. Her classmate said to her, "You are not going, are you?" "Why not?" was the rejoinder. "It is a dancing party," was the reply. "So much the better, I have long wanted to attend a ball, and now I mean to go just this once and see what it, is." She did go. But she was not satisfied with this once. Charmed with its fascinations she went again and again. Scarcely a ball came off in the town without Ellen being present: After some months had passed thus her friend and classmate one day surprised her in tears. Finding she was discovered, she said, "I have been reviewing, my life for the past few months." "And are you resolving to do better?" asked her classmate. "Not just yet. I have one more engagement for Christmas eve. I must fill that, and that shall be my last." She did fill that, and it was her last. She took cold, went home and, took her bed, grew worse from day to day, and after an illness of several weeks she died. In her last hours, as her classmate stood beside her bed, she looked up and exclaimed, "I am lost, forever lost!" When they spoke to her of Christ and his willingness to save, she would only repeat, "I am lost—forever lost! .... That ball—that, first ball has been my ruin!" and thus she died. Now, reviewing the direct moral results in this case, we argue that it is a sin thus wontonly to destroy the health of our bodies which God has given us, And as the ball room does, in many instances, lead to such results, therefore it is wrong.

OK, so maybe this archaic argument won't get you out of viewing Dancing With Stars (unless Ebola gains strength) but it does raise the issue as to whether or not dancing is appropriate for Christians. My quick 2 cents is that obviously dance as an art-form and as a social means of expression is similar to music in that it can demonstrate how people are made in the image of God. When I see a gifted musician or a skilled dancer (whether they are Christians or not), I'm awestruck as to the abilities God gives to certain people. Whether they know it or not, their skill and creativity speaks of God's glory as creator.  On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me at all that sinful people take their God-given abilities and use them in sinful ways, denying the very God that created them, or that dance can be combined with sin to produce even more sin. It also doesn't surprise me that two people watching a couple dance in a graceful and almost acrobatic and seemingly effortless way can come to very different conclusions: one sees the skill produced by the glory of God, the other sees a sinful display of lust and lewdness. It doesn't surprise me that a Christian could go to a wedding and dance to the same tired songs without feeling even a pinch of conviction, while someone else struggling with sexual addiction needs to turn the other way to watch the wedding cake melt.


Luther and Dancing
Digging around I came across this old Lutheran sermon being cited in Adversaries of Dance: From the Puritans to the Present (Ann Louise Wagner), so of course, I did a quick search of the book to see what she said about Luther. She does so on page 25 in an undocumented statement:

Then in a footnote on page 41:

The Luther quote referenced by Wagner was interesting enough for me to look up. It's from WA 17 II: 64, which I cross-referenced to it's English equivalent, Lenker's Luther's Church Postil, Volume 1. Note the asterisk in the quote:

10. What then is moderation? Reason should teach that, and cite examples from other countries and cities where such pomp and excess are unknown. But to give my opinion, I would say a farmer is well adorned if for his wedding he have clothes twice as fine as he daily wears at his work; a burgher likewise; and a nobleman, if he have garments twice as costly as a townsman; a count, twice as costly as a nobleman; a duke, twice as costly as a count, and so in due order. In like manner food and drink and the entertainment of guests should be governed by their social position, and the purpose of the table should be pleasure not debauchery.

11. Now is it a sin to play and dance at a wedding,* inasmuch as some declare great sin is caused by dancing? Whether the Jews had dances I do not know; but since it is the custom of the country, like inviting guests, decorating, eating and drinking and being merry, I see no reason to condemn it, save its excess when it goes beyond decency and moderation. That sin should be committed is not the fault of dancing alone; since at a table or in church that may happen; even as it is not the fault of eating that some while so engaged should turn themselves into swine. Where things are decently conducted I will not interfere with the marriage rites and customs, and dance and never mind. Faith and love cannot be driven away either by dancing or by sitting still, as long as you keep to decency and moderation. Young children certainly dance without sin; do the same also, and be a child, then dancing will not harm you. Otherwise were dancing a sin in itself, children should not be allowed to dance. This is sufficient concerning marriage.

Lenker's translations of Luther's sermons were rarely adorned with extensive explanatory notes, but in this instance, Lenker actually wrote a short essay. Dancing must've been something he was rather concerned about. He included the following directed at "those who quote Luther to support the modern dance":

We are to remember that when Luther did not protest against the dance at a wedding he had in mind the dance of his day. The round dance in vogue among us was not then the general custom of the country. The dancers touched one another only with their hands and moved about in the room in measured time or sprang here and there, especially when in the open air. To be sure at that time also there were connected with dancing all kinds of immorality. But "all intemperance and whatever was unchaste" Luther did not approve, but forbade and chastised it. And we know that he considered the round dance as unchaste, and condemned it with sharp words.

In Luther's Letters by De Wette, 6 vol., 435p. in his "Sendschreiben und Bedenken," he gives his judgment on the conduct at dances thus: "Dances are gotten up and allowed that politeness in conduct may be taught and that young men may learn to honor the female sex and that friendship may be formed between young men and refined young ladies in order that later they way be the more sure of that friendship. The pope condemned dances because he was the enemy of the true and natural marriage festival. Therefore certain honorable women and men were invited to the wedding festivals to see that every thing was done in a becoming way. But there is one thing that does not please me in the conducting of dances, and I would that it might be prohibited by the government; namely, that the young men swing the girls around in a circle, especially publicly, when many are looking on." And as a result many governments, especially city councils in the days of Luther and later, passed public ordinances against "Dancing in a circle without a cloak." In these ordinances "the swinging and whirling of the girl in a circle" was forbidden. Consequently, the round dance in vogue today does not belong to the unchaste dances, and not to dances that are allowed, and Christians should avoid them. See St. Louis Ed. vol. 11, 467.

Walch says in his II vol. p. 2: Luther's books have been subject to gross misuse, especially his Church Postil. Those who advocate the modern dance think they have here found a strong argument. Those who conclude from these words, however, that the modern dance is not sinful and it is not to be avoided and condemned, have no ground for their conclusion. Those who quote Luther to support the modern dance, because he had so deep an insight into the things of faith and life and is so highly esteemed in our church, accomplish nothing. For you can quote Luther against Luther. How if you cite the places in his writings where he clearly condemns the dance in general, as his explanation of the third commandment, in his short explanation of the ten commandments and his exposition of Gen 4, 21, etc. Then the passage here will give you no support in your defense of the sinful lust of the dance. For what you find here in Luther's words, you imagine. When I take this passage in its entire connection I find something entirely different.

Luther is not speaking of the dance here in general, but of the chaste dance that is conducted in childlike simplicity. Luther opposed sour-faced hypocrites and self-grown saints, who like the Pharisees could tolerate nothing, not even a child to dance. Luther, like Christ in this miracle, kept the middle way.

I found this fascinating because it speaks of a battle that ended long ago, with Luther being cited for support (the times have not changed in this regard). Since I have little knowledge of the history of dance,  I'm not exactly sure what Lenker meant by "modern dance." That is, was he battling against something akin to the Jitterbug or the ballet, or both? I don't know. My guess is he would not tolerate sitting through Dancing with the Stars. On the other hand, Rev. J.R. Sikes would probably rather have a drink (if in fact, he was the same author of this book, which I'm not sure if he was).

How To Keep The Homeless Out of a Catholic Church

San Francisco Saint Mary’s Cathedral Drenches Homeless With Water To Keep Them Away

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) — KCBS has learned that Saint Mary’s Cathedral, the principal church of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, has installed a watering system to keep the homeless from sleeping in the cathedral’s doorways.

...and also:

UPDATE: SF Archdiocese Apologizes For Water System To Repel Homeless At Saint Mary’s Cathedral

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) – Saint Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco will dismantle a system that pours water on entrance areas of the church frequented by homeless after receiving a formal notice of violation from the city. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Archdiocese has apologized for the ‘misunderstood’ and ‘ill-conceived’ effort to keep homeless out of alcoves used to enter and exit the church.

Rome's Bloggers Described by... One of Rome's Bloggers

http://www.catholicstand.com/fight-all-error-an-open-letter-to-all/

"Reports and personal experience stories are mounting of vulgarity, bullying, personal attacks and other forms of unacceptable behavior emerging from Catholic bloggers and their fans in the web-culture. Ironically, these attacks rarely center around the traditional ‘hot button’ issues of abortion, or even mid-level issues like ordaining women to the priesthood. More often today, Catholics are finding themselves the target of verbal abuse, ‘unfriending’ and banning from blogging boards for disagreeing with Catholic bloggers on peripheral issues like water-boarding, lying to save unborn children, or giving a $15 per hour minimum wage."

Recent Reformation / Luther Postings

Here's a few things I came across over the last few days from a few different perspectives:


Notes On Calvin’s Doctrine That Justification Sola Fide Is The Principal Axis Of The Christian Religion (R. Scott Clark)- Clark revises a word in the Battles translation of the Institutes to demonstrate Calvin's use of the term "regeneration." R Scott Clark also lamented about those who swim the Tiber or become Eastern Orthodox in this recent blog post.

James White vs. Jimmy Akin on Predestination-  Here's a YouTube audio of an interaction between Dr. White and Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers on Predestination. I'm not sure of the date on this one, but it must be old by this point, since Dr. White's opening statement goes through Akin's article A Tiptoe Through Tulip.  I went through Akin's article some years back, but I'm sure Dr. White was interacting with it long before I even knew about Mr. Akin. It doesn't appear to me that either AOMIN or CA makes this debate available (at least I could not find it on these websites).

Be a Sinner and Sin Boldly (Walid Shoebat)- Shoebat is a pro-Roman Catholic anti-Islamic website. This article on Luther from April 2014 cites me, unattributed. I may actually go though this article at some point. Shoebat states, "The question isn’t Luther’s statements, but why so many theologians defend him, especially that there are countless obvious immoral statements in his writings? I gave only three references from some of Luther’s defenders (there are hundreds) who re-interpret Luther’s statements. Many are simply Luther’s sycophants."

Calvin contra Rome on Scripture (Introduction); Calvin contra Rome on Scripture (Part 1)- reformation 21's Professor Denlinger starts this series of entries on Calvin vs. Rome. He mentions helpfully,

The burden of proof that something other than Scripture constitutes a source of "saving truth" -- whether that something be "unwritten traditions" or Chinese fortune cookies -- rests entirely with those making such claims. This is often overlooked by would-be Roman apologists who require Protestants to defend from Scripture their principle that Scripture alone is authoritative, and fail to realize that sola Scriptura is not a positive claim per se, but a denial of the positive claim that "unwritten traditions" or anything else deserve the moniker "Word of God."

Reformation or Revolt or Revolution? by Dr. Paul Peters (Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary). I mentioned this old article a few days ago. It's a brilliant article that attempts to cut through the battle over the word "Reformation." The seminary also hosts a number of free articles worth digging through.

Reformation or Revolution?

I finally had a chance to listen to the recent Catholic Answers broadcast, The Real Story of the Reformation with Steve Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. Early on in the broadcast Mr. Weidenkopf decided to change the term "Reformation" to "revolution." He stated,

I like the term and I use the term "Protestant revolution" rather than "Reformation," and I use that term, because, you know again, words obviously have meaning, and ah, they convey, you know a sense, a meaning... when we use them, and so we need to be accurate in our historical presentation, and for most of us in the English speaking world, particularly in the United States, our history has been presented from a predominantly English Protestant perspective, and so, even the terms that are used to describe this historical event follow along from that perspective, and so often, more often than not, you always hear of this time period and these events in the sixteenth century in Europe referred to as the "Protestant Reformation" when the Protestants like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others, so called "reformed" the church. But what I contend is that if you actually read the writings of these reformers (so-called "Reformers") and look at their lives, they really weren't about reforming the church, but they really wanted to overthrow it, and destroy it, and replace it with something different... and that's a revolution.

Mr. Weidenkopf goes on to use the term "revolution" throughout the broadcast. While I know the presentation of history is far from "neutral," I'm suspicious of anyone claiming to be an historian that sees fit to redefine popular and accepted historical terms. It would be like me refusing to use the word "catholic" when speaking of the Roman church. "Catholic" is the historical term used in the phrase, "Roman Catholic Church." From my perspective, Rome has officially anathematized the gospel, and is no longer doctrinally in the set of "catholic." Yet, I know fully well that when I use the term "catholic" most folks think of "Roman Catholic Church."  Ironically, when I visit Catholic Answers, I usually avoid using the word "Roman" because I was chastised once by a moderator for referring to the "Roman church" even though Catholic Answers themselves use the word. I guess if I had my own discussion forums, I could chastise Rome's defenders for using the word "revolt" or "revolution" rather than the term "Reformation."

The switching of "Reformation" to "revolution" isn't the result of the historical creativity of Mr. Weidenkopf. This is standard procedure for Roman Catholic polemicists. E.G. Schweibert described it back in 1950 as typical of the defenders of Rome and secularists:

E.G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950), p. 8.

For a fascinating treatment of this switching of terms, see Reformation or Revolt or Revolution by Dr. Paul Peters (of whose article I'm indebted for referring me to Schweibert). Peters explains how complicated this subject actually is. I recommend a careful reading of this old article as there's a lot to chew on. I found the section "But Luther Answers his Roman Catholic Critics" well-constructed. Dr. Peters presents an overview from many of Luther's writings as to how Luther himself would respond to those who said he had caused a revolt.

Weidenkopf isn't being historical, he's being polemical. You can tell when he says that if you "actually read the writings of these reformers (so-called 'Reformers') and look at their lives, they really weren't about reforming the church, but they really wanted to overthrow it, and destroy it, and replace it with something different." This is old-school Roman Catholic polemics, pre-Lortz.

There are at least two major benefits to being aware of Weidenkopf's term switching. First, the polemics presented by Weidenkopf demonstrate how out of touch the Catholic Answers sort of person is with the trends in the magisterium and contemporary Roman Catholic scholarship in regard to the Reformation and Rome's version of ecumenism.  When it comes to history, Rome's defenders are their own "blueprint for anarchy." Second, for the folks who visit and support Catholic Answers, the Reformation is still important and is a battle still to fight (this contrary to Mark Noll's theory the Reformation is over). We can be pleased to see the "Catholic Answers" type of people are still engaging in a centuries-old theological battle. Are these folks the remnant of older generations of Rome's defenders? Yes, I think they are.  In an ironic way, they actually help the Gospel by continually fighting against it. It's much easier to present truth to people who actually think someone is right and someone is wrong.

Debate: Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible? ( James White vs. Zakir Hossein)

Debate: Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible? (James White vs. Zakir Hossein)

See it over at my other blog, "Apologetics and Agape".  I made extensive notes.

Papal Trends on the Reformation?

Here's a few posts from the Catholic Answers Forums. A person posted some papal comments reflecting current trends in the way the magisterium reflects on the Reformation. Most of this sort of ecumenical stuff falls on deaf ears on the CA forums. Granted, Rome isn't looking to retract anything in regard to the main issues of the Reformation (they're waiting for everyone else to come to their senses and agree with them)- however the attitude is much different than what one find presented by many of Rome's cyber-zealots.

Mar 3, '15, 8:58 pm

Tomyris  Regular Member Join Date: February 9, 2013 Location: Formerly Posting as Truthstalker Posts: 1,477 Religion: Evangelical Presbyterian

Re: Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done And look at THIS (I, too, can cut and paste) Quote: POPE PRAISES LUTHER IN AN APPEAL FOR UNITY ON PROTEST ANNIVERSARY By HENRY KAMM, Special to the New York Times Published: November 6, 1983 ROME, Nov. 5— Pope John Paul II, in a letter issued today, praised Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation who was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, saying the world is still ''experiencing his great impact on history.'' His comments were contained in a letter to the president of the Pontifical Secretariat for the Union of Christians, Johannes Cardinal Willebrands, to mark the anniversary of Martin Luther, whose 500th birthday will be celebrated next Thursday. The text of the letter was made public by the Vatican, In a related development, it was announced that Pope John Paul would preach on Dec. 11 in a Lutheran church here. The announcement was made by Christoph Meyer, the dean of the church, the Evangelical Lutheran Christoph Church, which has served the resident German community for 168 years. The service will be held in German, and the Pope will preach in the language of Martin Luther. The letter from the Pope to Cardinal Willebrands, was dated Oct. 31, 1983, the anniversary of the date in 1517 when Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the castle church of Wittenberg, Germany, giving birth to the Protestant Reformation. The Pope wrote the letter to Cardinal Willebrands, the Archbishop of Utrecht, in German. The Pope referred to Luther as the theologian who ''contributed in a substantial way to the radical change in the ecclesiastical and secular reality in the West.'' He continued: ''Our world still experiences his great impact on history.'' The Pope noted with satisfaction that the Protestant churches had declared the anniversary year to be an occasion that should serve ''a genuine ecumenical spirit'' and said that he saw this as a ''fraternal invitation'' to a joint reflection on the history and inheritance of Luther. Roman Catholic and Protestant studies have yielded a more balanced picture of Luther's personality and the realities of the 16th century, the Pope continued, and shown that ''the rupture in ecclesiastical unity cannot be reduced to the lack of comprehension by Catholic Church authorities or solely to Luther's lack of understanding of true Catholicism, even if both factors played a role.'' The Pope called for continued historical research, ''that does not take sides, motivated only be the search for truth,'' to provide ''a true image'' of Luther and the Reformation. ''Guilt, wherever it exists, must be recognized, on whichever side it is found,'' the Pope wrote. Continue Search for Unity John Paul called on Cardinal Willebrands to continue the ecumenical dialogue in quest of restoration of Christian unity and offered a special prayer and blessing for this work. ''The clarification of history that turns to the past and whose significance persists must go in equal steps with the dialogue of faith which we at present embark on to look for unity,'' the Pope wrote. The Pope said the anniversary year was ''an occasion to meditate, in Christian truth and charity, on that event engraved in history that was the epoch of the Reformation.'' ''It is time that we distance ourselves from historic events and assure that they are often better understood and evoked,'' the Pope said. John Paul said Luther was a man of ''profound religiousness'' who was ''driven by the examination of eternal salvation.'' Papal Visit Arranged Last Year http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/06/wo...niversary.html[url="http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/06/world/pope-praises-luther-in-an-appeal-for-unity-on-protest-anniversary.html"] __________________ Pray for the Church Now Undergoing Persecution, even as you read this

#937

#938       Mar 3, '15, 9:24 pm

Tomyris  Regular Member Join Date: February 9, 2013 Location: Formerly Posting as Truthstalker Posts: 1,477 Religion: Evangelical Presbyterian

Re: Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done Here's more. Quote: Pope calls for “mutual forgiveness between Catholics and Lutherans” Ecumenism ECUMENISM In his address to the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity, Francis said “there are no lack of difficulties but we must not be afraid” DOMENICO AGASSO JR ROME “Catholics and Lutherans can ask forgiveness for the harm they have caused one another and for their offenses committed in the sight of God,” Francis said during this morning’s audience with the delegation of the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity. The Pope’s meeting with Bishop Munib Younan, the Federation’s president and its secretary, Martin Junge, follows on from the “very cordial and pleasant meeting” which took place during the inaugural celebration of Francis ministry as the Bishop of Rome. “It is with a sense of profound gratitude to our Lord Jesus Christ that I think of the many advances made in relations between Lutherans and Catholics in these past decades, not only through theological dialogue, but also through fraternal cooperation in a variety of pastoral settings, and above all, in the commitment to progress in spiritual ecumenism. In a certain sense, this last area constitutes the soul of our journey towards full communion, and permits us even now a foretaste of its results, however imperfect. In the measure in which we draw closer to our Lord Jesus Christ in humility of spirit, we are certain to draw closer to one another. And, in the measure in which we ask the Lord for the gift of unity, we are sure that he will take us by the hand and be our guide,” Francis said. “This year, as a result of a now fifty year old theological dialogue and with a view to the commemoration of the five-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, the text of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity was published, with the significant title: From Conflict to Communion. Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017. I believe that it is truly important for everyone to confront in dialogue the historical reality of the Reformation, its consequences and the responses it elicited,” Francis continued. “Catholics and Lutherans can ask forgiveness for the harm they have caused one another and for their offenses committed in the sight of God. Together we can rejoice in the longing for unity which the Lord has awakened in our hearts, and which makes us look with hope to the future.” “I am certain,” Francis went on to say, “that we will continue our journey of dialogue and of communion, addressing fundamental questions as well as differences in the fields of anthropology and ethics. Certainly, there is no lack of difficulties, and none will lack in the future. They will continue to require patience, dialogue and mutual understanding. But we must not be afraid! We know well – as Benedict XVI often reminded us – that unity is not primarily the fruit of our labours, but the working of the Holy Spirit, to whom we must open our hearts in faith, so that he will lead us along the paths of reconciliation and communion.” Finally, Francis quoted the Blessed John Paul II’s question: “How can we proclaim the Gospel of reconciliation without at the same time being committed to working for reconciliation between Christians?” (Ut Unum Sint, 98). “May the faithful and constant prayer of our communities sustain theological dialogue, the renewal of life and the conversion of hearts, so that, with the Triune God, we will be able to journey together toward the fulfilment of Jesus’ desire that all may be one,” Francis prayed. http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en...teranos-28838/ __________________ Pray for the Church Now Undergoing Persecution, even as you read this

Quote:

In Erfurt Benedict presents Luther as a model for Catholics In the place where Martin Luther used to speak against the Popes, Benedict XVI, the first German Pope since the Protestant Revolution, deliberately paid homage to that heresiarch. Before the trip, he expressed his desire to link his papal visit to Germany to the 500th anniversary of Protestantism. He also conveyed his wish to meet at greater length with the heads of the so-called Lutheran Church. To fulfill these desires the Lutherans offered him the Augustinian Monastery in Erfurt, where Luther studied, became priest and professor of theology before leaving to split the Church and Europe. Erfurt, where the meeting took place on September 23, 2011, and its neighboring city Wittenberg, where Luther posted his 95 theses, are considered the very heartland of Protestantism. It was there that Pope Ratzinger praised Luther’s quest for God as the “deep passion and driving force of his whole life.” Moreover, Benedict considered Luther as a model to find God: “The question: What is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? This burning question of Martin Luther must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.” Further on in his speech, Ratzinger presented the heresiarch as a model for spirituality: “Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: ‘What promotes Christ’s cause’ was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life.” Such were the concessions Benedict XVI made to Luther and Protestantism, attempting to throw into oblivion the unforgettable condemnations of the Catholic Church against both.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Rev...38-Erfurt.html