What was the Protestant Reformation?

[e.r.m.]

Two major events occurred prior to the Reformation. One of them was the availability of the Scriptures, by Wycliff (and God of course), the other was the coincidental movement which arrived to Europe just before the reformation, namely 16th Century philosophical humanism. Humanism, in that era, focused on very practical matters and on human behavior. Machiavelli loved the study of human behavior. Anyhow, Zwingli a Swiss Reformer, got his higher education from the University of Basil, a center of Humanism. He was known as a practical thinker (as per his training) and he looked up to Erasmus, a big-time humanist. John Calvin, a french reformer, was a lawyer trained in Humanism, turned priest. Zwingli's teachings were based on practicality. "I cannot see Jesus's flesh and blood in the eucharist, so it's just a symbol and I cannot literally see water washing away sins, so baptism is just a symbol too. In contrast, Luther focused on faith in what cannot be seen. The two disagreed strongly with eachother. As a strategy of his campaign against the Anabaptists to defend infant baptism, Zwingli advocated for and made dominant the beliefs that 1) Baptism is a work. 2) It is a symbol of sins already forgiven 3) It is an outward identification with and pledge to Christ, & 4) It is a christian counterpart to Jewish circumcision. John Calvin made the following doctrine stick: "A person is saved at the moment he/she places their faith in Christ." The Bible doesn't add this time clause to believing. Basically, my position is that the Protestant reformation was part Bible and part Philosophy. I hear and have read on this thread many protestants unwittingly quoting Zwingli and Calvin. I do not believe that these two humanist Reformer's teachings can be trusted.

 

[SageTree]

Sola Scriptura/The Five Solas are key principles to emerge at this time in Protestantism.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Two major events occurred prior to the Reformation. One of them was the availability of the Scriptures, by Wycliff (and God of course),.

No, the bible was available for a while. Its just most people were illiterate.

 

[e.r.m.]

Sola Scriptura/The Five Solas are key principles to emerge at this time in Protestantism.

That was the Biblical part.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The reformation was not a single event.
It is simply a reaction process between the excesses and corruption of the then Catholicism, and new thought liberated in the 15th and 16th centuries, reinforced by the availability of books and new translations.

New Ideas were crossing borders far more readily than in the past. and "heretics" were far more difficult to control.

Calvin did not introduce much that was new, as his Ideas flowed from the work of Constantine of Hippo (4th Century) But were taken to logical extremes. He had no compunction to declaring fellow reformers, that disagreed with him, to be heretic and having them burnt. ( so much for his Christian love.)

The expansion of Ideas, education and the availability of new material, stoked the fire of the reformation, quite as much as hatred for Catholic excesses.

 

[e.r.m.]

No, the bible was available for a while. Its just most people were illiterate.

That's why I said "prior to."

And all the more reason, the average Joe could not distinguish between the Bible and philosophy when the two were woven together by reformers.

 

[e.r.m.]

The reformation was not a single event.
It is simply a reaction process between the excesses and corruption of the then Catholicism, and new thought liberated in the 15th and 16th centuries, reinforced by the availability of books and new translations.

New Ideas were crossing borders far more readily than in the past. and "heretics" were far more difficult to control.

Calvin did not introduce much that was new, as his Ideas flowed from the work of Constantine of Hippo (4th Century) But were taken to logical extremes. He had no compunction to declaring fellow reformers, that disagreed with him, to be heretic and having them burnt. ( so much for his Christian love.)

The expansion of Ideas, education and the availability of new material, stoked the fire of the reformation, quite as much as hatred for Catholic excesses.

I agree with you overall. But these men also added humanism to the mix and made their beliefs the dominant accepted doctrines of their day.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I agree with you overall. But these men added humanism to the mix and made their beliefs the dominant accepted doctrines of their day.

Whilst there were undoubtedly "Humanist" aspects going back certainly as far as the ancient Greeks. which were revived in later epochs, including the middle ages; it was not until the Renaissance that it had much influence on Europe. It was not necessary to the reformation, which had other fish to fry.

 

[e.r.m.]

Whilst there were undoubtedly "Humanist" aspects going back certainly as far as the ancient Greeks. which were revived in later epochs, including the middle ages; it was not until the Renaissance that it had much influence on Europe. It was not necessary to the reformation, which had other fish too fry.

Except that humanism just happen to hit two of the three principal reformers, Zwingli and Calvin. It did not have to be in full swing at this time. Zwingli was educated at a humanism center & was mentored by a well known humanist. Then he became known for making worship services 'practical' as well as his doctrines. Humanism influencing and under the umbrella of religious reform would never have to take the credit.

 

[Jethro]

No, the bible was available for a while. Its just most people were illiterate.

It is true that the majority of people before the Reformation were illiterate, however, this didn't mean that the Scriptures were available to them. Rather, because the Roman Catholic Church demanded that the Scriptures, as well as the entire church service be spoken in Latin (language of scholars), in this sense then the Scriptures were hidden from the laity. Furthermore, in England, William Tindale had to die at the stake just to try and get the Scriptures into the English language.

 

[Jethro]

Two major events occurred prior to the Reformation. One of them was the availability of the Scriptures, by Wycliff (and God of course), the other was the coincidental movement which arrived to Europe just before the reformation, namely 16th Century philosophical humanism. Humanism, in that era, focused on very practical matters and on human behavior. Machiavelli loved the study of human behavior. Anyhow, Zwingli a Swiss Reformer, got his higher education from the University of Basil, a center of Humanism. He was known as a practical thinker (as per his training) and he looked up to Erasmus, a big-time humanist. John Calvin, a french reformer, was a lawyer trained in Humanism, turned priest. Zwingli's teachings were based on practicality. "I cannot see Jesus's flesh and blood in the eucharist, so it's just a symbol and I cannot literally see water washing away sins, so baptism is just a symbol too. In contrast, Luther focused on faith in what cannot be seen. The two disagreed strongly with eachother. As a strategy of his campaign against the Anabaptists to defend infant baptism, Zwingli advocated for and made dominant the beliefs that 1) Baptism is a work. 2) It is a symbol of sins already forgiven 3) It is an outward identification with and pledge to Christ, & 4) It is a christian counterpart to Jewish circumcision. John Calvin made the following doctrine stick: "A person is saved at the moment he/she places their faith in Christ." The Bible doesn't add this time clause to believing. Basically, my position is that the Protestant reformation was part Bible and part Philosophy. I hear and have read on this thread many protestants unwittingly quoting Zwingli and Calvin. I do not believe that these two humanist Reformer's teachings can be trusted.

You are very wrong in claiming that they cannot be trusted. For just because they were trained in that humanist ideology, doesn't mean they held onto it after they were converted to Christ. For the moment a person becomes a true Christian--they start conforming their minds and their lives to the will and Word of God. If you can find any of their writings that are humanistic, I would like to see it. However, having said all this, yes, they are only men, born of Adam. And therefore, we cannot take everything they said as Gospel truth. For instance, infant baptism has no Scriptural validity, and so Calvin was wrong on that. However, most of their teachings were in line with the Scriptures. Therefore, I trust their writings as long as they conform to the Word of God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You are very wrong in claiming that they cannot be trusted. For just because they were trained in that humanist ideology, doesn't mean they held onto it after they were converted to Christ. For the moment a person becomes a true Christian--they start conforming their minds and their lives to the will and Word of God. If you can find any of their writings that are humanistic, I would like to see it. However, having said all this, yes, they are only men, born of Adam. And therefore, we cannot take everything they said as Gospel truth. For instance, infant baptism has no Scriptural validity, and so Calvin was wrong on that. However, most of their teachings were in line with the Scriptures. Therefore, I trust their writings as long as they conform to the Word of God.

I think Calvin was wrong on much of what he taught TULIP is nonsense. It is simply interpolation to the extreme of old ideas.

However Infant Baptism was practised from the earliest days of the church.
In the same way the Didiche was never part of the Bible, it describes the teaching of Christianity to gentile converts and predate the compiled Bible... Many practises were passed down as tradition from those early Christians and are every bit authentic Christianity as Teachings from the Bible are. The Bible was not compiled as a "how to do it manual" all such writings were not seen as relevant.

Service plans, prayers, church organisation and in fact all day to day worship and practise were left out. Not because they were not important, but because the were not relevant to a book of scripture.

 

[e.r.m.]

You are very wrong in claiming that they cannot be trusted. For just because they were trained in that humanist ideology, doesn't mean they held onto it after they were converted to Christ. For the moment a person becomes a true Christian--they start conforming their minds and their lives to the will and Word of God. If you can find any of their writings that are humanistic, I would like to see it. However, having said all this, yes, they are only men, born of Adam. And therefore, we cannot take everything they said as Gospel truth. For instance, infant baptism has no Scriptural validity, and so Calvin was wrong on that. However, most of their teachings were in line with the Scriptures. Therefore, I trust their writings as long as they conform to the Word of God.

http://markmoore.org/resources/essays/zwingli.pdf
Zwingli was dualistic as well as humanistic.

Another one:
Baptism, Faith, and Works

Zwingli was educated for the priesthood at a center of humanism (according to his teachings, he considered himself to have been regenerated by this point) and his humanist mentor, Erasmus, was within the catholic church. For Zwingli, philosophy was part and parcel with his teachings as a priest, he did not forsake any of it. Much of what he taught was driven by worldly thinking as much as scripture. He believed political reform should happen alongside religious reform and died on the "battlefield" as a fighting priest. -Not to be trusted.

 

[e.r.m.]

If Zwingli's teachings are not trustworthy, then All of Zwingli's doctrines on water baptism, which have filtered down to Baptist churches, cannot be trusted either. The Baptist scriptural beliefs on baptism that are not traced back to Zwingli, (e.g. - believers baptism) of course are trustworthy. Baptist churches would have some reevaluating to do. Some baptist preachers have already begun to reevaluate the meaning of scriptures on baptism. I could NOT BELIEVE that on a protestant religious channel I saw this guy quoting Acts 2:38 and saying that baptism is for remission of sins, no qualifying, no debunking, he believed it. Zwingli's teachings deserve questioning.

 

[fallingblood]

No, the bible was available for a while. Its just most people were illiterate.

Actually, for the most part, it wasn't available. It wasn't widely available as printing the Bible had to be done by hand, and was a very difficult, expensive, and time consuming task. Add to that that it was in Latin, which even those who weren't illiterate couldn't read unless they sought additional education, it was not widely available to the vast majority of people.

It was not until when the Reformation began evolving, that the Bible started being more available. And even then, those who translated it were in very difficult positions, where a threat of death, excommunication, or the like was looming. Simply, the Catholic Church did not want the Bible written in the common language of the people. We can see that by the fact that those who tried to translate it into English, German, or whatever, came under attack, were killed, and/or had to go into hiding/exile.

 

[fallingblood]

Two major events occurred prior to the Reformation. One of them was the availability of the Scriptures, by Wycliff (and God of course), the other was the coincidental movement which arrived to Europe just before the reformation, namely 16th Century philosophical humanism. Humanism, in that era, focused on very practical matters and on human behavior. Machiavelli loved the study of human behavior. Anyhow, Zwingli a Swiss Reformer, got his higher education from the University of Basil, a center of Humanism. He was known as a practical thinker (as per his training) and he looked up to Erasmus, a big-time humanist. John Calvin, a french reformer, was a lawyer trained in Humanism, turned priest. Zwingli's teachings were based on practicality. "I cannot see Jesus's flesh and blood in the eucharist, so it's just a symbol and I cannot literally see water washing away sins, so baptism is just a symbol too. In contrast, Luther focused on faith in what cannot be seen. The two disagreed strongly with eachother. As a strategy of his campaign against the Anabaptists to defend infant baptism, Zwingli advocated for and made dominant the beliefs that 1) Baptism is a work. 2) It is a symbol of sins already forgiven 3) It is an outward identification with and pledge to Christ, & 4) It is a christian counterpart to Jewish circumcision. John Calvin made the following doctrine stick: "A person is saved at the moment he/she places their faith in Christ." The Bible doesn't add this time clause to believing. Basically, my position is that the Protestant reformation was part Bible and part Philosophy. I hear and have read on this thread many protestants unwittingly quoting Zwingli and Calvin. I do not believe that these two humanist Reformer's teachings can be trusted.

Calvin and Zwingli didn't start the reformation though. They were simply two of the reformers who worked with it. The reformation began earlier than them, and was in direct response to wanting to reform the Church. As you said, one of the reasons was to get scripture out in the common tongue of the people.

It really can't be traced back to humanism though. Maybe some of the reformers can be traced to that, but you have only mentioned later reformers.

 

[e.r.m.]

Calvin and Zwingli didn't start the reformation though. They were simply two of the reformers who worked with it. The reformation began earlier than them, and was in direct response to wanting to reform the Church. As you said, one of the reasons was to get scripture out in the common tongue of the people.

It really can't be traced back to humanism though. Maybe some of the reformers can be traced to that, but you have only mentioned later reformers.

You are absolutely right. Luther took the first major steps of the reformation by postng the 95 thesis to the catholic church door after Yohann Tetzel ticked him off with his indulgences. Hence, humanism did not start the reformation, but humanism was in place in time to mix into the reformation (primarily with the later reformers). Zwingli and Calvin joined later, but were major players. Zwingli actually broke away from the catholic church under Swiss protection, whereas Luther simply wanted to reform. All of these three men's teachings have had defining influences on the belief systems of protestant churches today.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, don't leave out the importance of events such as Henry VIII's philandering and subsequent divorce, which led to the formation of the Church of England, when you're discussing the Reformation. Don't leave out the abuses of Oliver Cromwell, or the crudity of Martin Luther either.

My point is that the Reformation had corrupt elements to it as well - just as the Catholic Church did.

 

[Muffled]

Idon't think it was so much that humanist philosophy was being incorporaated as the fact that the age of reason had begun.

Catholics spread an air of mystery arond their beliefs as though mystery should explain their beliefs. With the age of reason, mystery was no longer acceptable. It does make sense to view scripture as it is written without having to add mysteries to it but these days reason is used to discount scripture altogether. That concept that humans know what the Bible should say better than God seems highly unreasonable to me.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hey, don't leave out the importance of events such as Henry VIII's philandering and subsequent divorce, which led to the formation of the Church of England, when you're discussing the Reformation. Don't leave out the abuses of Oliver Cromwell, or the crudity of Martin Luther either.

My point is that the Reformation had corrupt elements to it as well - just as the Catholic Church did.

Sure, absolutely. Although, I'm not sure Henry VIII's separation from the catholic church on the basis of his personal life could be considered a reformation in the classical sense, but definitely historically significant.
They were all violent executioners, every last one of them, including Luther. (Maybe not Calvin).