• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Protestant Reformation

Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I'm just curious about something. Maybe someone with a background in the history of Protestantism can give me some information.

When Martin Luther and those who followed in his footsteps (Calvin, Wesley, etc.) broke away from the Catholic Church, how long did it take before the churches they established to gain a real following? It seems to me that since the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had been the only Christian Churches around for nearly 1500 years, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc. would have, in their early years, been considered "cults." Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe they were accepted right off the bat. Who can give me some accurate information on this subject?
 
L

Lloyd

Member
Luther's revolt against Rome was popular with people from many different walks of life, including nobility. What made the Protestant Reformation distinct from earlier religious movements was that it was sponsored by princes and kings who resented Roman influence in their territories. The messages of the reformists were ultimately political, not spiritual. They should be seen more as an opposing political party rather than new spiritual movements. They were regarded as heretics, but I don't think that carried all the same connotations as cults do today. It was more that Rome believed they were incorrect and thus they had to be stamped out.

That's my take on the Reformation which I'll warn you is a very Catholic interpretation of the Reformation. Other people will have different perspectives on the Reformation. Generally, I think that Luther and Calvin were some of the lamest "reformers" in Christian history. They helped correct some pretty heinous abuses but their spirituality pales in comparison to other reform minded individuals like George Fox or Francis of Assisi.
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
In the Uk Methodists were break aways from the Church of England and were persecuted, but in a rather legalistic sort of way. It was the King who broke away from the Popes authority and formed the C of E at a much earlier date.
Terry
_________________________________________


Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 
Scott1

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Lloyd said:
The messages of the reformists were ultimately political, not spiritual. They should be seen more as an opposing political party rather than new spiritual movements.
Click to expand...
I disagree.... the foundation of the Reformation was a difference in theology... away from the hierarchy and legalism of the Catholic Church... towards a more spiritual side.

Yes ... I said it.:p

The Reformers were right about a lot of things... they were wrong about a lot of others.... but as seen by the recent ecumenical developments, many Protestant churches are looking to RE-FORM with Rome.... most of the things Protestants were "protesting" are a thing of the past ----or seen as nothing to protest about.

Just my take.:)
 
Mike182

Mike182

Flaming Queer
Scott1 said:
I disagree.... the foundation of the Reformation was a difference in theology... away from the hierarchy and legalism of the Catholic Church... towards a more spiritual side.

Yes ... I said it.:p

The Reformers were right about a lot of things... they were wrong about a lot of others.... but as seen by the recent ecumenical developments, many Protestant churches are looking to RE-FORM with Rome.... most of the things Protestants were "protesting" are a thing of the past ----or seen as nothing to protest about.

Just my take.:)
Click to expand...
hmmmmm

i think i will argue that martin luthers message was purely spiritual

his followers may have not been so interested in the spiritual side of things - the princes had a lot to gain certainly - Henry VIII certainly got his divorce by following the break from rome

martin luther always argued on the basis of scripture - not on political or on a socio-economic basis

on the other hand - the timing of his 95 theses was obviously politically timed - but the contents were spiritual

also the usage of the printing press and his political immunity through fredrick of saxony played a pivital part in securing his break from Rome

also to support that luther was spiritually motivated in his reformation - he argued with swengli over the euchrist - swengli was the leader of the sweedish protestant movement but believed something different to luther on the euchrist

thats just my oppinion as a historian (i studied this last year in my A-level history)

i will post more as i enjoyed this subject immensly

God Bless
 
michel

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Katzpur said:
I'm just curious about something. Maybe someone with a background in the history of Protestantism can give me some information.

When Martin Luther and those who followed in his footsteps (Calvin, Wesley, etc.) broke away from the Catholic Church, how long did it take before the churches they established to gain a real following? It seems to me that since the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had been the only Christian Churches around for nearly 1500 years, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc. would have, in their early years, been considered "cults." Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe they were accepted right off the bat. Who can give me some accurate information on this subject?
Click to expand...
Katzpur;

I hope you won't mind if I don't post the text (another long one) - but you could look at :-

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a085.html:)
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
michel said:
Katzpur;

I hope you won't mind if I don't post the text (another long one) - but you could look at :-

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a085.html:)
Click to expand...
Hi, Michael.

I just finished reading the material you pointed me to, and I've got to admit, it was very, very interesting. But in all honesty, I found myself disagreeing with the author from the very first sentence. As a matter of fact, the further I read, the more I shook my head in disbelief. I am assuming that you agree with what the article said; otherwise you would probably not have posted it. It would be fun to debate it with you. I don't know how we could possibly go about doing so, though, and this thread would probably not be the place for a discussion on it. If you have any ideas as to how we might be able to further discuss it, please let me know. I can well imagine that the Protestant posters on this forum would have a lot to say on the subject, and I can assure you that the LDS posters would have more to say than you would probably want to hear! :) What would you think about posting the link in a new thread and opening it to debate?

Kathryn
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I appreciate everybody's replies, but unfortunately no one has really answered my question. What I want to know is not was the Protestant Reformation justified or what were Martin Luther's motives. I want to know how long it took before the new Protestant denominations really took off. How well were they accepted by the overall population which was almost exclusively Catholic. Did everybody want to lynch Luther or was he looked upon as a hero? Say, 50 or 75 years after Lutheranism being established, were these new faiths considered to be just a fad, or did huge numbers of people in those early years think, "Yes! At last! We're getting back to the Church as it was in the beginning!"? Can anyone shed some historical light on these issues for me?
 
L

Lloyd

Member
Lutheranism took off almost immediately in many parts of Germany. It was a broad based religious movement just about from the beginning. I think Zwingli may not have been as mainstream though. Resentment against Rome was pretty widespread at the time, so they were pretty popular considering how radically they changed Western Christianity.
 
johnnys4life

johnnys4life

Pro-life Mommy
From what I have read some of Luther's objections were theological, others were because of what he considered corruption in the church. I'm not saying there WASN'T corruption, but there were others who were trying to correct things without leaving.

Luther was the first (if I remember right) to believe in salvation by faith alone (basically throwing out the entire book of James and a lot of other scripture in doing so, if you ask me).

Katzpur, I do believe I have a thread on this on the Catholic forums already. The last couple of posts were extremely good. One person who answered me was doing this as his thesis for his docterate and knew tons. I'll try and dig it up for you.
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The Curch of England was never Protestant in the sense the Lutherans were.
The only thing that changed was by command of King Henry v111. He was now head of the church. And those priests and bishops who would not swear to this were executed.This mumbled on one way or another through several reigns. But as we all know the Anglicans won.
The actual people never changed completely. however much they were persecuted and the Catholic Church has survived here all along.
The services and teachings of the High Anglicans have hardly deviated from the Catholic Tradition. Those at the low end of the church were turned puritan by Cromwell. and the High Church went into hiding only re-emerging after the restoration.
Today there is a Cof E tradition to suit all tastes, even though they are all part of the Anglican Communion.
Terry
________________________________________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top