What was the Protestant Reformation?

[e.r.m.]

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.

I agree with the age of reason and what it has lead to today. It could be that humanism was part of the age of reason, I would have to check history on that. One thing I have noticed about new ideas in large groups is that they are paramount at first, until they set, in and then people learn to scrutinize and separate. A example of this would be the frenzy around the subprime mortgage market, prior to the economic collapse. As someone once mentioned, humanism wasn't yet at full strength in Europe. People were still learning it and had the fascination as with a new toy. They would not be expected to see the dangers of humanism, and that's even if they were aware they were being influenced by it. Consider that the University of Basil, where Zwingli attended, was a center of humanism and was teaching priesthood. That's my guess.

 

[JacobEzra.]

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.

Simply untrue. Monks were translating and copying parts of the bible into languages the comon people understood for awhile. Expecially Franciscans and Dominicans.

 

[fallingblood]

Simply untrue. Monks were translating and copying parts of the bible into languages the comon people understood for awhile. Expecially Franciscans and Dominicans.

Why did the Catholic Church persecute figures such as John Wycliffe? Also, do you have any sources that support your claim? I would be interested in seeing them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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).

Calvin had many who disagreed with him burned at the stake. Mostly fellow protestants.

 

[e.r.m.]

Calvin had many who disagreed with him burned at the stake. Mostly fellow protestants.

Wow!, Ok thanks.

 

[e.r.m.]

Jethro, you were right in regard to Calvin. I did some reading on Calvin, because most of my knowledge and comments were based on Zwingli (whose teachings are not to be trusted). What I read indicates the extent of Calvin's humanism went only so far as "ad fontes" which means, "back to the sources" or original languages of the Bible. Calvin strongly believed that scriptures were superior to philosophical ideas and made it a point to separate one from the other. So his teachings have some trustworthiness, whereas Zwingli's do not. However, Calvin still added the time clause saying that people are saved "at the moment" they put their trust in Christ, whereas the Bible does not. As a result, most Baptists today teach people are saved "at the moment" they believe, or similar incarnations like "Accepting Jesus as personal savior."

 

[JacobEzra.]

Why did the Catholic Church persecute figures such as John Wycliffe? Also, do you have any sources that support your claim? I would be interested in seeing them.

Wycliff was persecuted not because of translating the bible but because of political tensions and his opposition of Rome. You honestly going to tell me there was no translations before 1382-94? You must be kidding.

<H4 align=justify>In London William Courtenay, now elected as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, found just what he was looking for to silence John Wycliffe. He used the Peasant’s Revolt, which was putting fear in the hearts of the aristocracy, to blacken Wycliffe’s name, but he knew that he was not involved in it but actually sought to stop it happening. It was in fact another priest, John Ball, who was directly associated with the Peasants’ Revolt, and who had been released from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s prison to take a leading part. He, along with Wat Tyler, the leader of the rebels, denounced the rich for their injustice to the poor. John Ball declared, “What right do they have to rule over us? Why do they deserve to be in authority? If we all came from Adam and Eve what proof do they have that they are better than we? Therefore why should we labour for them while they live in luxury?” Out of his preaching came the rhyme that was upon the lips of many poor people, “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was the gentleman?” The problem for John Wycliffe was that John Ball quoted him, so the Archbishop had what he saw as sufficient evidence against him, and laid the blame for the uprising at the door of the reformer.

The revolt brought Wycliffe’s hopes of political reform to a close. It appears that the Church and Parliament united together in pointing the finger of guilt at Wycliffe. The revolt in fact caused the wealthy to turn defiantly against the new religious movement associated with Wycliffe. Fear of economic and political insurrection sent the ruling classes back to the altars of Rome. The one clear outcome of the Peasants’ Revolt was to delay the full extent of the English Reformation for about another 150 years. Wycliffe said of this coming together of opposing groups, “Herod and Pilate have become friends.” Though thousands of peasants were being hung and disembowelled for their part in the revolt, but for God’s grace Wycliffe could have easily suffered the same fate if the Church had been allowed to have its way. Archbishop Courtenay sought the authority of Pope Urban VI before he acted against Wycliffe, and soon as he received word from the Vatican he called what is known as the Blackfriars Synod on 17 May 1382. Those sitting in judgement on Wycliffe in the monastery of Blackfriars included eight bishops, fourteen doctors, four monks and fifteen friars. There is some doubt about whether Wycliffe himself was invited to attend the session.

peasants revolt</H4>
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Versions of the Bible

 

[Kathryn]

Calvin had many who disagreed with him burned at the stake. Mostly fellow protestants.

Right - in fact, my Jewish ancestors from Zurich were forced to convert under Calvin's "rule" - or they would have been severely punished, possibly even killed.

 

[e.r.m.]

Right - in fact, my Jewish ancestors from Zurich were forced to convert under Calvin's "rule" - or they would have been severely punished, possibly even killed.

Sorry to hear.

 

[Kathryn]

Sorry to hear.

Well, at this point it's just an interesting chapter in the life of some of my ancestors. But thanks.

 

[e.r.m.]

To demonstrate the power of history:

In 591, Pope Gregory the Great stated that all three were in fact one woman, Mary Magdalene, and this is how she became labeled as a prostitute, or the unnamed sinner. However the Second Vatican Council removed the prostitute label in 1969 after much debate and Biblical evidence that there was more than one Mary and that Mary of Magdalene and the unnamed sinner were two different figures.

The link -
Mary Magdalene

To this day, Mary Magdelene is still associated with sexual sin. Poor lady.

In the same way, Huldrich Zwingli in the 1520s, in his defense of infant baptism, he decided to link infant baptism to jewish circumcision. Zwingli said that infant baptism could be 1. The sign of the covenant for christians and performed shortly after birth just like circumcision and 2. An entry into the christian community, instead of the jewish community. Zwingli's aim was to discredit the anabaptists effort to re-baptize people who were baptized as infants (believer's baptism). Zwingli did not believe in believrr's baptism. The Bible never made any kind of association between circumcision and baptism. Today, protestant after protestant, say that baptism is just like circimcision -a sign of the covenant. Protestants do this while 1. Not knowing the original purpose of linking the two ordinances -infant baptism & 2. Thinking it is their original idea, "look what I discovered in the Bible." All the while, The Bible still never associates the two, any more than the Bible associates Mary Magdelene with sexual sin.

 

[fallingblood]

To demonstrate the power of history:

In 591, Pope Gregory the Great stated that all three were in fact one woman, Mary Magdalene, and this is how she became labeled as a prostitute, or the unnamed sinner. However the Second Vatican Council removed the prostitute label in 1969 after much debate and Biblical evidence that there was more than one Mary and that Mary of Magdalene and the unnamed sinner were two different figures.

The link -
Mary Magdalene

To this day, Mary Magdelene is still associated with sexual sin. Poor lady.

In the same way, Huldrich Zwingli in the 1520s, in his defense of infant baptism, decided to link infant baptism to Jewish circumcision. Zwingli said that infant baptism could be 1. The sign of the covenant for christians and performed shortly after birth just like circumcision and 2. An entry into the christian c

Zwingli was not the first to link baptism with the idea of Jewish circumcision though. He simply moved it one step back, to infants. The idea of baptism being a sign of the covenant goes back very very far. I may be incorrect, but I do believe Paul even mentions it.

The thing with Mary and being labeled a prostitute, that may have just been an accident. Looking at it, it is quite possible it was just an accident. Which I think makes a similar point that you are but a little different. Accidents can have a bad effect on history as well.

 

[e.r.m.]

Zwingli was not the first to link baptism with the idea of Jewish circumcision though. He simply moved it one step back, to infants. The idea of baptism being a sign of the covenant goes back very very far. I may be incorrect, but I do believe Paul even mentions it.

The thing with Mary and being labeled a prostitute, that may have just been an accident. Looking at it, it is quite possible it was just an accident. Which I think makes a similar point that you are but a little different. Accidents can have a bad effect on history as well.

Thank you.
I agree Pope Gregory could have made a careless accident.
I'd like to see any documentation you may have that circumcision as a sign of the covenant/baptism popped up before Zwingli. I could tell you for sure that, neither Paul, nor anyone else in the Bible made this association. They are always treated separately. That's a product of history. It is not a Biblical teaching.