Ep. 2 - The Protestant Reformation

After some tweaking and making some changes to how we present things we are back with episode 2. Thank you again for all the support that has been given and I hope you enjoy the video.

[kobismith]

Stephen and Nate,

I took the time to watch your podcast on the protestant reformation and decided that I would comment on this one from an opposing point of view. However, I would first like to mention that it is quite refreshing to see young adults, such as myself, who are willing to engage in discourse about what they believe in; and more specifically, the nuances of Christianity as a whole. It should be noted that when you subject your opinions to the internet or publicity, there will be positive and negative feedback. My intentions in commenting are only to provide you with challenging feedback that will prompt you to engage more in researching your own beliefs and to provide viewers who may identify as Christians with information that is not a direct product of Catholic dogma.

You start off your video with commentary about Martin Luther, which is a good place, if not the only place, to start when discussing the protestant reformation. For those who are not well versed in church history, Martin Luther (1483 A.D. – 1546 A.D.) was a German theologian who fronted the protestant reformation. In short, Luther believed the Roman Catholic Church at the time was errant in their beliefs. He attacked the idea of selling “indulgences, ” which was a way to grant remission of sins in return for funding what the papacy was working on. Furthermore, he is most known for nailing his 95-Theses to the door of the Wittenburg Castle Church. In these theses, he focuses on two main beliefs. 1.) “Sola Scriptura” otherwise known as scripture alone. 2.) “Sola Fide” or faith alone. While these two ideas are not a product of his own, the circumstances surrounding his effort to make these known to the papacy could not have yielded more effective results. Without going into further detail about Luther, you admit that the church had corruption and that Luther had the right to protest; however, you question his right to split or leave the church. You also comment that there should have been change, but not division. Romans 12:2 says “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is – His good, pleasing, and perfect will.”

Perhaps it is possible that Luther was at the forefront of change that needed to happen, and perhaps it was also God’s will despite our beliefs or circumstances now. The protestant reformation, while larger in scale and more widely known, was no different from any other schism or conflict within the church prior to this time. In fact, there were many Christological controversies in early church history as well as many different forms of Christianity. Some of these early forms would be Pauline (40s AD), Nazarenes (40s AD), Gnostic traditions (pre-70 AD), Pauline break-offs which are Marcionism (144 AD), Montanism (mid 2nd century), Priscillans (late 2nd century), Monarchianism’s (late 2nd century), and lastly (not a Pauline break-off)Manicheism (3rd Century). Granted, I wouldn’t call all of these forms of Christianity now, but they definitely had their influence from Jesus to some degree. It is also important to note that before 367 AD, there was no canonical “New Testament, ” no universal authority, and a substantial amount of theological diversity. So basically, the “Church” was born and then organized when apostolic succession (187 AD) became a thing. From this organized parties would then have an issue with something theologically, have a council, and usually would split up forming yet another sect of Christianity based upon a difference in beliefs. The most notable is the Council of Nicaea, but I digress. The point is, despite what division may have been justly or unjustly caused because of Luther, it is not our place to judge him as he not only could have been a useful person in God’s will, but he was not the first. Moreover, just because the Roman Catholic Church had deep roots in the early church and many successes for rather deplorable reasons does not mean it is the “THE church.”

Moving on, you mentioned that Martin Luther regretted causing the protestant reformation “to a degree.” I will say, it did seem to be Luther’s intention to simply reform the Roman Catholic Church and not to split it. While he might have held regrets about this, he never once recanted. Obviously, it would be great if all Christians could be a part of the same church, but clearly, a difference in belief prompts otherwise. It is also bold to assume he had complete control over the situation. Yes, he could have recanted when given the opportunity and put an end to the matter, but what would have happened to the corruption that you already admitted was in the church? He speaks on this but you claim it was a “cop-out” without noting the crowds supporting him and even parts of the nobility such as Fredrick III. Luther had to seek refuge after the Edict of Worms (this is in reference to the place pronounced “vurmz”) in fear for his life. Do you think these people would have supported Luther despite being forbidden to if his arguments didn’t have some merit behind them? Simply dealing with the “arrogance” within the church would have led to just as many problems as the schism did.

Now, only three minutes into your video, there is nothing wrong with having casual conversations about these topics; however, some structure or substance to your arguments would benefit you greatly. Following the whole anti-pope discussion, you move into a “Fake News” discussion about the current pope. I am going to ignore this part of the podcast as it did not provide much substance about the protestant reformation other than an attempt to tie it back into the very real payment of indulgences in Martin Luther’s time. I am almost willing to bet that the same people who buy into these gimmicks today have no idea who Martin Luther even was, much less the nuances of church history or relevant topics of discussion regarding the division of the church. From this, you claim that the “protestant reformation has got to be one of the biggest heresies of the modern age.” To this, I ask “In what form?” Are you claiming that all denominations that are a product of the protestant reformation are heretical?” This of course would be with the understanding that not all denominations stemming from Martin Luther or the protestant reformation adhere to everything he believes (Let’s not forget Calvin). Simply because the church at the time claimed Martin Luther was a heretic does not mean every Christian at the time or even now also must believe the same. It is obvious the church would do that because they were presented with opposing views and other implications were to take place. You need to consider the implications outside of Christianity that this had for the Pope and other nobility. They would lose power and much of this portion of Germany would no longer be in unity. The proof of frustration is in the number of times the Roman Catholic Church could write “Let him be anathema.”

[andrewhosfeld]

Every October 31, aside from it being Halloween, it is ‘celebrated’ as Reformation Day in honor of the 95 Theses being ‘nailed to the church’ door. Just always remind those that ‘celebrate’ this day that Luther’s 95 Theses agreed with Papal authority.

[dominicgabler]

I enjoy this podcast for YouTube algorithm reasons