Off The Deep End

[KingsGambit]

Oh I was basically just pointing out that I think many believers in our modern society tend to reject the more extreme commands of the Bible in favor of a therapeutic view of God simply because they perceive that God doesn't actually involve himself in a tangible, objective manner. They play it safe, in other words - "I believe, naturally". They therefore categorize the believers who actively try and hear the voice of God and pursue the gift of miracles while evangelizing everywhere they go as "nutbars".

Ah, okay.

[Scrawly]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here...

Oh I was basically just pointing out that I think many believers in our modern society tend to reject the more extreme commands of the Bible in favor of a therapeutic view of God simply because they perceive that God doesn't actually involve himself in a tangible, objective manner. They play it safe, in other words - "I believe, naturally". They therefore categorize the believers who actively try and hear the voice of God and pursue the gift of miracles while evangelizing everywhere they go as "nutbars".

[rogue06]

Can you provide any names of Catholics contemporary to Luther or the Counter-reformation who referred to Luther and the other reformers as evidence of an imminent apocalypse? I am not saying you're wrong, but I have never heard of this and would like to learn more if it represents a substantial number of people who advocated this view.

Was going from memory but have a book or two in storage that brings up what was being said by both sides.

[robrecht]

Perhaps a mixture of both. If the Seven Day Adventist historian LeRoy Edwin Froom is correct referring to the pope as the Antichrist was something that had been going on for centuries in central Europe. He cites, for instance, the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, Austria Eberhard II von Truchsees as saying at a synod of bishops held at Regensburg, Germany around 1240 that the people of his day were "accustomed" to calling the pope Antichrist.

And I think many of the Catholics indeed thought that the Reformers were evidence of the coming of the End Times in that in their view they were sundering the body of Christ.

Can you provide any names of Catholics contemporary to Luther or the Counter-reformation who referred to Luther and the other reformers as evidence of an imminent apocalypse? I am not saying you're wrong, but I have never heard of this and would like to learn more if it represents a substantial number of people who advocated this view.

[rogue06]

Good point. So it was not just rhetoric but Luther's, Calvin's and Knox's actual beliefs; is that what you're saying? I know many Catholics believed Luther and the reformers to be truly evil and the tool of Satan, but did they generally believe that they were living in the end times on account of Luther's and Calvin's appearance as the Antichrist and false prophet?

Perhaps a mixture of both. If the Seven Day Adventist historian LeRoy Edwin Froom is correct referring to the pope as the Antichrist was something that had been going on for centuries in central Europe. He cites, for instance, the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, Austria Eberhard II von Truchsees as saying at a synod of bishops held at Regensburg, Germany around 1240 that the people of his day were "accustomed" to calling the pope Antichrist.

And I think many of the Catholics indeed thought that the Reformers were evidence of the coming of the End Times in that in their view they were sundering the body of Christ.

[robrecht]

You might find this interesting: http://ww.bibelschule.info/streaming...rt-1_21898.pdf
Or this: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...-of-world.html
It wasn't just inflated rhetoric. It was a part of his theology. He thought in terms that today we might call "spiritual warfare." Think of "A Mighty Fortress." I think he meant those words a lot more literally than most modern Protestants who sing the hymn.

It's certainly not my viewpoint, but it's a traditional Christian approach. In a period that still remembered three popes anathematizing each other, popes in conflict with councils, and unprecedented corruption in the Church, it's easy to see why someone might find it attractive.

In many ways Luther was the last great medieval theologian. His worldview was quite different than mine, which is formed by the Enlightenment. He saw the world as a place where God and Satan were active in everyday affairs. The Papacy wasn't just the victim of normal human sin, but represented Satan's attack and on the Church, and at least a temporary victory. You can make a good argument that parts of the NT take a similar view. He was obviously wrong about the End coming soon. But for people whose outlook is a bit more supernatural than mine, it doesn't invalidate the concept that the corruptioin and heresy in the Church represented Satan's activity. In this context, one might describe the Pope as the anti-Christ, although not the anti-Christ of the End. In that context, Luther might have been wrong about chronology, but not about what was really going on.

This approach is alive and well in today's Church. Just look at the number of people who are talking about the moral destruction of the West, and seeing this as the apostasy foreseen in the NT, with the end swiftly coming.

Thanks for the links, I read them last night and now see that you subsequently added to your post. I understand this perspective and pretty much agree with you. Except I don't think a good argument can be made that parts of the New Testament were addressing the papacy as Satan's attack on the church. I think the papacy actually developed much more slowly, 'though some of the roots of this later development can be seen in Matthew's gospel, but there these roots of what would eventually become the papacy are seen positively.

[seanD]

I think the fundamentals may be much broader than those general beliefs. I doubt there are very many churches out there that would disagree with those fundamentals (with the possible exception of the virgin birth), so something needs to explain why the church is waning and, most notably, why divine manifestations, supernatural interactions and revelations aren't at all on par with the church of the first century.

[robrecht]

IMHO, one key to keeping yourself sane is to keep "fundamental theology", that which is essential to the Christian faith, distinct from "disputable theology", that which isn't.

So, trinity; incarnation; virgin birth; Christ's death, burial, and resurrection resulting in propitiation; justification/salvation through faith; and bodily resurrection are fundamental. The rest is disputable.

If those are the fundamentals then I don't get why some Christians around here use the term "fundie" so disparagingly to describe other Christians not of their ilk.

At least in Catholic and some larger academic theological circles, fundamental theology is not merely a list of the fundamentals (which is the origin of the initially positive connotation of the term 'Fundamentalism'), but rather a matter of genuine theological inquiry and debate over how some fundamental theological concepts, eg, revelation, should best be understood theologically. There is plenty of room for disagreement and debate about how these fundamental concepts should best be understood. To continue with the example of revelation, is it best understood as propositional, ie, literal statements taken from the bible or church councils, or personal, ie, Jesus Christ is the supreme personal revelation of who God is as human, acting within human history, to whom the scriptures and counciliar statements attest within a human historical context.

[seanD]

IMHO, one key to keeping yourself sane is to keep "fundamental theology", that which is essential to the Christian faith, distinct from "disputable theology", that which isn't.

So, trinity; incarnation; virgin birth; Christ's death, burial, and resurrection resulting in propitiation; justification/salvation through faith; and bodily resurrection are fundamental. The rest is disputable.

If those are the fundamentals then I don't get why some Christians around here use the term "fundie" so disparagingly to describe other Christians not of their ilk.

[MaxVel]

IMHO, one key to keeping yourself sane is to keep "fundamental theology", that which is essential to the Christian faith, distinct from "disputable theology", that which isn't.

So, trinity; incarnation; virgin birth; Christ's death, burial, and resurrection resulting in propitiation; justification/salvation through faith; and bodily resurrection are fundamental. The rest is disputable.

That's good advice.


Although we might end up getting crazy over what the fundamentals are....

[hedrick]

You might find this interesting: http://ww.bibelschule.info/streaming...rt-1_21898.pdf
Or this: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...-of-world.html
It wasn't just inflated rhetoric. It was a part of his theology. He thought in terms that today we might call "spiritual warfare." Think of "A Mighty Fortress." I think he meant those words a lot more literally than most modern Protestants who sing the hymn.

It's certainly not my viewpoint, but it's a traditional Christian approach. In a period that still remembered three popes anathematizing each other, popes in conflict with councils, and unprecedented corruption in the Church, it's easy to see why someone might find it attractive.

In many ways Luther was the last great medieval theologian. His worldview was quite different than mine, which is formed by the Enlightenment. He saw the world as a place where God and Satan were active in everyday affairs. The Papacy wasn't just the victim of normal human sin, but represented Satan's attack and on the Church, and at least a temporary victory. You can make a good argument that parts of the NT take a similar view. He was obviously wrong about the End coming soon. But for people whose outlook is a bit more supernatural than mine, it doesn't invalidate the concept that the corruptioin and heresy in the Church represented Satan's activity. In this context, one might describe the Pope as the anti-Christ, although not the anti-Christ of the End. In that context, Luther might have been wrong about chronology, but not about what was really going on.

This approach is alive and well in today's Church. Just look at the number of people who are talking about the moral destruction of the West, and seeing this as the apostasy foreseen in the NT, with the end swiftly coming.

[robrecht]

Of course he did. In some sense he wasn't even wrong. It was someone sitting at the head of the Church whose goals were very different from Christ's. And heaven knows there are plenty of Christians today who think events less serious than those in his time indicate the coming of the end times. I'm sure they believe it too.

He certainly was not wrong about many evils in the church, including among the popes and hierarchy, etc, but he was wrong about this being a sign of the end times. I don't know if many Catholics also went down this apocalyptic road.

[robrecht]

Luther was hardly unique in this, many of the Protestant reformers such as John Calvin and John Knox readily identified the Roman Papacy as being the Antichrist but AFAICT Catholic apologists of the time repaid that rhetoric in kind and identified Martin Luther as the Antichrist and "the Beast" of Revelation and said that Calvin was the false prophet.

Good point. So it was not just rhetoric but Luther's, Calvin's and Knox's actual beliefs; is that what you're saying? I know many Catholics believed Luther and the reformers to be truly evil and the tool of Satan, but did they generally believe that they were living in the end times on account of Luther's and Calvin's appearance as the Antichrist and false prophet?

[hedrick]

Do you think Luther's identification of the pope and others as the antichrist or other figures from the book of Revelation was merely rhetorical and did not represent his actual beliefs?

Of course he did. In some sense he wasn't even wrong. It was someone sitting at the head of the Church whose goals were very different from Christ's. And heaven knows there are plenty of Christians today who think events less serious than those in his time indicate the coming of the end times. I'm sure they believe it too.

[rogue06]

Do you think Luther's identification of the pope and others as the antichrist or other figures from the book of Revelation was merely rhetorical and did not represent his actual beliefs?

Luther was hardly unique in this, many of the Protestant reformers such as John Calvin and John Knox readily identified the Roman Papacy as being the Antichrist but AFAICT Catholic apologists of the time repaid that rhetoric in kind and identified Martin Luther as the Antichrist and "the Beast" of Revelation and said that Calvin was the false prophet.