Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Martin Luther/Reformation Day - Romans 1:16-17

Recommended Posts

Staff

Romans 1:16-17

  • 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
  • 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,[e] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Since this is the 499th Anniversary of the Reformation I thought it might be interesting to look at Romans 1:16-17 through the eyes of Luther. My main reason for coming to this Scripture was the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. What's so important about the doctrine of justification by faith alone? So what was it that Martin Luther believed before coming to this conclusion? And how in the world did he not see it for soooo long? I know we take it for granted, but remember, so many of Christiandom never saw it either, why?

 

Happy Reformation Day!

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

I have a few comments about this.

 

First of all, Scriptural ignorance.

 

While I know that every Roman Catholic apologist will jump up and down in protest that the Church read the scriptures during the Medieval era, I believe that while scripture was read in churches every mass, far too often it fell of deaf ears, as Latin was not the language of the people. Likewise, to disagree with the hierarchy on doctrine- scriptural or not- was often punishable by death. So scriptural ignorance certainly is the fertile soil of heresy. Certainly there were scholars who knew the scriptures and kept the faith alive in those times, but sheer numbers against them brought the church to needing a reform and return to paleo-orthodoxy. There's a lot more on this point we could add.

 

Secondly, the marriage of Church and State. Never works. For a person to become a bishop or Pope in the church most often one had to have the right political connections and pedigree, and even money. Knowledge of Christian doctrine was sometimes not even a factor. This clearly is the worldly way of seeking power and not way of the ministry of Christ. This not only contributes to ignorance of the scriptures, it compiles it. If your local archbishop got his title when he was a teenager by way of a generous "gift" to the church (it happened) and not after decades of study of the word and service to God's people, then it should be no wonder that all those appointed under him to positions within the church are clueless political animals and not preachers of the Gospel. Where there is no word, there is no life.

 

It is no coincidence that the true Reformers of the Church were all humble clerics and scholars.

 

There were people who understood justification before the Reformation, but they were hidden and burdened under a pile of politics, the love of money, false doctrines, false traditions and under threat of death if they made too big a deal out of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
I have a few comments about this.

 

First of all, Scriptural ignorance.

 

While I know that every Roman Catholic apologist will jump up and down in protest that the Church read the scriptures during the Medieval era, I believe that while scripture was read in churches every mass, far too often it fell of deaf ears, as Latin was not the language of the people. Likewise, to disagree with the hierarchy on doctrine- scriptural or not- was often punishable by death. So scriptural ignorance certainly is the fertile soil of heresy. Certainly there were scholars who knew the scriptures and kept the faith alive in those times, but sheer numbers against them brought the church to needing a reform and return to paleo-orthodoxy. There's a lot more on this point we could add.

 

Secondly, the marriage of Church and State. Never works. For a person to become a bishop or Pope in the church most often one had to have the right political connections and pedigree, and even money. Knowledge of Christian doctrine was sometimes not even a factor. This clearly is the worldly way of seeking power and not way of the ministry of Christ. This not only contributes to ignorance of the scriptures, it compiles it. If your local archbishop got his title when he was a teenager by way of a generous "gift" to the church (it happened) and not after decades of study of the word and service to God's people, then it should be no wonder that all those appointed under him to positions within the church are clueless political animals and not preachers of the Gospel. Where there is no word, there is no life.

 

It is no coincidence that the true Reformers of the Church were all humble clerics and scholars.

 

There were people who understood justification before the Reformation, but they were hidden and burdened under a pile of politics, the love of money, false doctrines, false traditions and under threat of death if they made too big a deal out of it.

 

Awesome response RevT! I was astonished the first time I found out that "sermons" were usually in Latin, and that the common layman were unawares as to what was being preached. With no available translations, and a sermon in a different tongue, the avg layman was completely ignorant of God's word or the principle of Sola Scriptura. It is no wonder that people were taken advantage of and that indulgences were pushed upon the layman.

 

Anyways, not to go off long on the subject, especially to a Lutheran! Here's an interesting clip I found today that supports what you shared.

 

Prior to the Reformation, papal authority, ritualistic ceremonies and relics had replaced the preaching of the Bible. The preaching of this era was often a short talk or homily that was largely based on stories rather than a clear exposition of God’s Word. Often these talks were in Latin, a language that the people didn’t speak or understand.

 

During the Reformation period, the preachers were standing boldly and proclaiming God’s Word. They were spending many hours translating it into the common language of the people. Luther spent time translating the Bible, writing, and preaching. This was the same pattern of William Tyndale and others such as John Rogers who worked under a false name – Thomas Matthew. These men labored in their translation and preaching. Their work was risky. It often didn’t end well. Tyndale was burned at the stake (1536) and John Rogers would soon follow him in (1555).

 

Although men like Luther and Calvin often had a similar purpose, they were profoundly different in their styles. Tyndale and Rogers were alike in many ways, but also different. The central element of common ground in the Reformation was a love for God’s Word. They were willing to risk it all for the sake of getting the Word to the people. Source: http://www.deliveredbygrace.com/reformation-preaching/

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

The Bible says that Satan blinds the unsaved to the truth of the gospel. The posts above point out that in Martin Luther's time people didn't have the Bible in their own language. I have never had that problem but I for a long time I didn't understand justification by faith either. I read the commands God gave as to how Christians are to live and interpreted them to mean that we needed to live that way in order to earn our salvation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Romans VIII Contrast

      The Eighth Chapter of Romans describes the identification of the two types of humanity: those who walk “after the flesh”; and those who walk “after the Spirit” (v 1). I think this discussion should begin with what Paul may have intended to mean by “walk after.” One might interpret this to relate to how one lives and another, how one desires to live, that is, we can seek to live according to the Spirit of God, but desire and do are not the same because the former leads to the latter.  

      in General Faith

    • Romans 9:21;Jeremiah 18:10

      So a few times I've head an argument from non Calvinist that Paul illustration of God as a potter in Romans 9:21 is in reference to Jeremiah 18:1-10. But I haven't heard much of an explanation as to how they come to that conclusion. In Jeremiah one lump of clay (Israel)  is reformed, while in Romans multiple vessels are made. Surely wrath and mercy aren't shown to one lump shaped into two different vessels.   Your thoughts?

      in Calvinism

    • Figuring out the Reasons Paul Wrote Romans (And Why It Matters)

      It is hard to account for all the data of Paul’s letter to the Romans, without concluding, along with Wedderburn, that “no one, single reason or cause will adequately explain the writing of Romans.” It is, nevertheless, helpful to distinguish between the single occasion that precipitated the letter, and the several purposes which Paul was seeking to accomplish by the letter, in view of that particular occasion. The former is Paul’s imminent arrival in Rome, en route to the virgin mission field t

      in Christian Current Events

    • Reformed Pastor Completes Brief 47-Year-Long Sermon Series On Book Of Romans

      MT VERNON, MO—Wrapping up the series that began during the Vietnam War, Reformed minister Michael L. Foster preached the final sermon in his brief, 47-year-long study on the book of Romans Sunday morning. The post Reformed Pastor Completes Brief 47-Year-Long Sermon Series On Book Of Romans appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • What Does “Foreknew” Mean In Romans 8:29?

      James Faris     “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Romans 8:29 (ESV)   What does “foreknew” mean in Romans 8:29? Does it mean God looked ahead through time and knew in advance who would believe in Christ and thus predestined them to be conformed to the image of Jesus? Perhaps it reveals some kind of “middle knowledge” of God as he weighed various contingencies and possib

      in Soteriology and Reformation Theology

×
×
  • Create New...