The time for reformation is at hand once again, so easily has the past been forgotten. The founding fathers of the reformation, as well as of the founders of the prodestant denominations would be apauled by what is going on… in Protestantism. (for a description of Protestantism see: What is Protestantism?) There are two pillars of the Reformation. The first is well known: Sola Gracia, Sola Christos, Sola Scriptura—Grace alone, Christ alone, the Bible alone. But few know the other pillar of the Reformation—the identity of the Antichrist. The reformers are unanimous on the identity of this power described and defined in Daniel. You will not find one reformer that did not identify the little horn power of Bible prophecy as the Holy Roman Empire that persecuted God’s Word and His people and magnified itself against Christ. This rather lengthy series points out our road towards End Times and the players in the New World Order……. Has Rome changed or is it still operating as a power that demotes Christ’s rightful place and sets itself up in the place of God?
The Protestant Reformation saw the advancement of the Gospel and an understanding of right doctrine that hadn’t been seen since the time of Christ and the Apostles. It drew Christianity out of the dark ages of the faith; a time when the Scripture was forbidden to be read in the language of the people, when superstition reigned, where abominations within the church leadership was a norm, and when a knowledge of the Truth was virtually unknown. But to the glory of God, He rekindled the fire of the Gospel, and it spread like a fire in a barn of hay. The Reformation has given us such a wealth of knowledge of the truth of Christ’s teaching that I personally will never be able to ingest all of.
altruistico 
The Protestant Reformation was a redefinition of Christianity, which included a repudiation of Church tradition and authority.
The Protestant Reformation was therefore a declaration of the failure of the Catholic Church as a Christian institution and religion.
This post recommends the exact same action that the Catholic Church took at the Council of Trent in response to the Reformation.
Namely, a reaffirmation of the doctrines it had held for 1500 years.
Reaffirmation is not reform.
Reform in the way of Martin Luther would mean redefinition and a break with the authority and tradition that had made Protestantism what it is today:
a disunited, factionalized mess.
A reform in the manner of Martin Luther would demand even more disunity and a greater factionalized mess because that is what Protestantism really is.
Do modern day “reformers” really want that?
LikeLike
Might I ask “what is wrong with ‘reaffirmation’ of truth?” Are you apposed to people knowing, understanding and witnessing for the truth?
You comment “Reform in the way of Martin Luther would mean redefinition and a break with the authority and tradition that had made Protestantism what it is today:”
I do not advocate for a “New Reformation Period.” Only that people understand fully what is happening in today’s world and with the Catholic Church and it’s influence through religion and politics world-wide.
Reaffirming what the founders of the Reformation found wrong with Catholicism and it’s beliefs (teachings); and, to promote Protestants return to the faith and belief of the True Church is to bring God’s people out of the dark and into the light. There is nothing changed – no new revelation – merely asserting there is a need today, for true Christians (followers of Christ and the True Church) to break from the influences of Catholic politics and teaching….
This is not “disunity,” as you claim. It is, once again, “reunifying” true believers….with the One True Church – of which Christ is the Head and not a (Papacy) Vicar for Christ here on Earth.
“Do modern day “reformers” really want that?” you ask? Yeah, I do. In fact, I think modern day Protestantism needs a revival… an overhaul…and rejuvenation the Christians saw after Calvin, Luther and countless others.
LikeLike
Understand that based on your view of free will Martin Luther would not think you were even a Christian. He would think you are a heretic. He wrote against free will even of the type you think exists.
There was little agreement between the early reformers. The only thing they would agree on is that some other third church or reformer were wrong. That is why Protestantism splintered thousands of different ways.
Finding common ground with other Christians and trying to reach understandings about different interpretations of scripture is going to be much more beneficial than calling everyone who disagrees with you names like the anti-chist or “heretics, hypocrites, liars, blasphemers, soul-murderers, sinners unto death, bedeviled all over.” like Luther did to those who disagreed with his interpretations of scripture.
LikeLike
You refer to me as saying, or calling, others names. You are mistaken.
if one calls me a liar, and it is for my having told a lie – is he then calling me a name, or is he speaking the truth?
My endeavor here is not “Reformation” in the sense of the word. it is, however, a reform, or reaffirmation of what Protestantism once taught and believed.
The Catholic church, through it’s political prowess, is infiltrating into many areas of peoples lives and teaching false doctrine. In the wake of these events many true Christian believers are being ill-effected by these matters.
I am promoting, to all people, that there is but one true church. That which Christ is the Head. Not a Vicar of Christ; And, people of all Christian denominations and faiths need to come to realize that false teachings does not, and will not, get them into heaven. So, from this position, I do advocate reinstitution of the Reformers and their positions.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you.
LikeLike
“I am promoting, to all people, that there is but one true church.”
Again understand that based on what you said here Martin Luther would vehemently deny you were a part of that church based on your view of free will.
I would be interested in your view of communion as well. Is the real presence of Christ there?
It’s all fine to talk about a one true Church but people disagree about issues and they even disagree about what issues are essential to the faith.
LikeLike
“The reformers are unanimous on the identity of this power described and defined in Daniel.”
Scripture alone seems not to when we attack the Catholic Church.
“I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
Second John Chapter 1
Do you believe scripture when it says that the one “who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
If you preach scripture alone then how can you discuss a pillar of your religion and not provide any scriptural evidence and in fact ignore what scripture says about the anti-christ?
http://christianity.about.com/od/endtimestopicalstudy/a/antichrist.htm
http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-the-antichrist/
http://www.openbible.info/topics/the_antichrist
The Bishop of Rome does not claim to be God. Nor does he ever want anyone to worship him.
LikeLike
The Bishop of Rome? On so many occasions, however, different Pope’s, through the history of the Catholic Church has proclaimed to be, or to be as (His equivalent), “God.”
And, yes, I do agree that anyone who confesses not Christ is God and has come in the flesh, would be an anti-Christ.
In all of my posts, as attested to in my blog, are with scripture. My comments here may not be. It does not mean I have no pillar of my faith.
LikeLike
Why do you ask “The Bishop of Rome?” You do know he is the pope right?
The Scripture is clear that anti-christ will Claim to be God. It does not say he will be the vicar of Christ.
If you refuse to see the distinction then I am sure you would be forced to conclude the scripture writers must have thought Peter was the anti-christ:
Mt 16:18 – upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 – give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 – Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 – given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 – angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 – risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 – headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 – led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 – received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 – performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 – inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 – excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 – received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 – led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 – pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 – after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles – Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
LikeLike
Many previous and past Pope’s have claimed to be God, or to be His equivalent. Would such proclamation be considered an anti-Christ? I would say yes.
My point of mentioning the “Vicar of Christ” is to point out the simplest of facts. Christ, the head of the One True Church never says anything, Biblically, about mere mortal man having such role as “taking His place. Do you agree?
it is but one more example as to why the Catholic Church is not fundamentally aligned with the teachings of the True Church……there are host of things of which are not biblical…..
LikeLike
Please let me know where a past Pope claimed to be God.
Such a pope is obviously wrong and perhaps he was the/an anti-christ. There might indeed be Popes that are in hell. But the current Pope clearly never claimed that.
When you say “or to be His equivalent” again if you are referring to binding and loosing authority that was given to Peter and the church believes that power has been handed down. If that makes them the anti-christ in your view then Peter was also the anti-christ.
LikeLike
Please forgive my absence from responding sooner. I was called into work. In response to your question I forward you the following:
Throughout the centuries of Rome’s existence, the popes have regularly claimed to be divine. As the supposed successor of Peter, the Pope claims infallibility, the position of God on Earth, and ability to judge and excommunicate angels.
Cardinal Sarto, who became Pope Pius X, said this:
The Pope represents Jesus Christ Himself…
This belief has so assimilated into society’s thinking that it is believed by many beyond Catholic circles. According to TIME, Pope John Paul II’s assassination attempt prompted a young Jewish man to say, “shooting the Pope—It’s like shooting God.”
This ancient Catholic document, Extravagantes Johannes, refers to the Pope as “Our Lord God…
In 1512 Christopher Marcellus said this to Pope Julius II:
Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth (emphasis added).
recently, in 2004, Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland said this: “It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ’s cross.
The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII says this: But to believe that our Lord God the Pope the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical (emphasis added).
Words from the Popes themselves:
In 1302 Pope Boniface said this in a letter to the Catholic Church:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Papal coin of Pius VI from the 1700s, with the title ‘Pius VI Pontifex Maximus.’ Papal coin of Pius VI from the 1700s, with the title “Pius VI Pontifex Maximus.”
Pope Leo XIII said these things about the role of the Papacy and the Roman Church:
Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.
This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief. But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty…
And more recently, Pope John Paul II wrote that names like “Holy Father” are applicable to the Pope, even though calling him that is counter to the Gospel:
Have no fear when people call me the “Vicar of Christ,” when they say to me “Holy Father,” or “Your Holiness,” or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel.
In 1996 he also gave his ascent to calling the Pope “Lord” and “Christ on earth”:
we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for “the Lord Pope“, the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called “sweet Christ on earth“, the apostolic obedience and the sentire cum Ecclesia of Saint Ignatius Loyola, and the joyful profession of faith made by Saint Teresa of Avila: “I am a daughter of the Church” (emphases added).
The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is unbiblical
It is clear that “the Popes have never reproved or rejected this title” of blasphemy and flattery, but the Bible does not support the belief of papal infallibility. It declares that “all of sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Roman 3:23). This includes the Pope. These boasts of the Papal State fulfill the Bible’s prediction of what the Antichrist power would do:
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws…(Daniel 7:25).
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven (Revelation 13:5-6).
But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.
I do trust this answers your question.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you.
Yours in Christ,
Michael
LikeLike
I ask for the source where the Pope said he was God or the Christ and you give me this:
“In 1512 Christopher Marcellus said this” Not a Pope.
“The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII says this:” The Gloss??
Yes he claims to be the vicar of Christ. That is not the same as being the Christ.
Peter was not claiming to be the Christ. Nor was Mathew Claiming Peter was the Christ even though Christ Gave him the keys to the Kingdom and binding and loosing authority.
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
Mathew 16:13-19
Peter was a man and handed down his position to the long line of bishops of Rome.
That the Bishop of Rome has primacy was recorded by the early church Fathers and by our early Church Councils.
Council of Constantinople Held in 381 Canons 2 & 3
“Canon 2: The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicaea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicaea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.
Canon 3: The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome. ”
You can claim this is recent invention all you want. But history is against you.
LikeLike
I am afraid you are blinded by your Catholicism, my friend.
What you do, you do as an attorney…. not a true man of God. Deflecting the truth will not stifle it, now quoting scripture which has little or nothing to do with the discussion lend nothing…..
As assuredly as you confess “Constantinople is the new Rome” it will be from Rome (Catholicism i. e. antichrist) the Anti-Christ shall appear.
To this very day the pope (present and past) have been working with the UN in order to bring about one world religion…. the Catholic Church adamantly supports worldwide “sustainability.” Of which sustainability equates to “control.”
it was the Catholic Church, in Constantine’s era, which did away with Sabbath worship on the 7th day (Saturday) for and of which the Scriptures says is Holy and moved it to (Sun)day. Against the W
Word of God (On the seventh day you shall rest).
LikeLike