Claims by Gendron

I'm skipping his intro about the upcoming 507th anniversary of Luther's theses (which he calls the one of the Reformation), and "is a new Reformation necessary", and go to his historic claims about the Reformation and went on before:

Gendron

Why Was the Reformation Necessary?

Me

He'll explain why it supposedly was, I'll explain why it wasn't.

Gendron

1. The Catholic Church had departed from the apostolic faith to follow doctrines of demons and pagan traditions (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Col. 2:8; Mark 7:7-13).

Me

A general intro to this claim. And I'll treat the Reformers partly as Mike Gendron treats them, even if it's sometimes ahistorical.

If it were true, the Catholic Church wasn't the true Church, so another one was ... all of that time. The Reformers could pick and chose between Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and a few more. Each of these had at some point split from the Catholic Church or its common trunk with some other Church, like Eastern Orthodox have at least been claimed to split from us in 1053 and 1090's (respectively Constantinople and Antioch) and the Copts over Chalcedon split from the common trunk of both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

The Baptist Continuity theory claims they could already have joined a Baptist Church that split from Pope Cornelius by adhering to the alternative Roman Pope, sorry Baptist pastor on their view, Novatian, in 251 AD. I regard this possibility as entirely spurious and claim both Anabaptism and Baptism have very much later origins, precursors, competitors or follow-ups of the Reformers.

What they could NOT do is what they did. Namely:

• claim the Roman Church was wrong
• at least implicitly claim any other ancient Church was also wrong
• and claim they were righting what had been wrong for centuries.

It is exactly what Charles Taze Russell did, when founding the Watchtower Sect. It's closely related to what Joseph Smith did, with the difference he claimed a revelation from God rather than the super best Bible Study to rule all Bible Studies, like Luther or Russell.

Note, the position of the Reformers was in fact more subtle and grey-zoned than this.*

But anyway, why is this impossible?

Matthew 28:16—20 involves Jesus giving a task and a promise, first a task, the teaching of all truth (which implies absence of all pernicious error), and then a promise to go with the task, remaining with the Church, with the Apostles He was adressing, and implicitly with their successors, since the promise was specified "all days, until the consummation of all time" ...

Now to Gendron's Bible quotes.

1 Tim. 4:1-3 doesn't refer to voluntary celibate, since St. Paul recommends it in 1 Corinthians 7, and also not to abstain from foods on fasting days, since Jesus says "when you fast" ... the Christian fast is typically what a Jew would refer to as "half fast" (their whole fast would be 24 hours without food, we don't do that), and part of their tradition also states that when breaking the fast in the evening, you abstain from meat and dairy, in their view for reasons of digestion. So, no, St. Paul's "doctrines of demons" doesn't at all refer to monks, celibate clergy, days of fast and abstinence.

It could refer to things done to some people, like to me:

• to consider me mad, they go about using modern psychiatry (though I'm not institutionalised, after what I've been told) which is doctrines of demons
• as they consider me mad, they don't allow me to marry yet
• as they consider lack of sexual appetite part of my problem, they make sure I eat plenty, that is they forbid me to fast also.

But it cannot refer to Catholic disciplines like those Gendron had in mind.

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ
[Colossians 2:8]

St. Paul was comparing Judaisers to Epicureans. Catholics are not Judaisers, nor are we Epicureans, so the accusation is not against us.

Mark 7:7—13 refers to a Pilpul that was fashionable with Jews, i e Pharisees as they back then were known apart from other Jews, back then.

Our Lord does not say all traditions evolving past a clear revealed truth are evil, but that one was since contradicting revealed moral truth.

Gendron

Very few traditions of the Catholic Church are found in the first century church described in the Book of Acts and the Epistles. The Reformers made it very clear that we are “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Rome's apostasy was officially and dogmatically documented at the Council of Trent, with dozens of anathemas that condemn those who do not believe its heretical dogmas.

Me

That very few traditions are explicitly found, as a Protestant would go about finding or not finding them (the kind of reading which would have led Beroeans to reject St. Paul, if they had held it!) is totally irrelevant. The NT is not all that huge a text mass. Franz Graf-Stuhlhofer (a Baptist) sums up the NT as 17 998 lines of text in Greek. This is too little to give detailed technical instruction on lots and lots and lots of subjects.

As to 1 Cor. 4:6, the Corinthians are told to be content with the hierarchy that's "written" rather than adding preferences for personal teams. Bishop Witham (whose priests were persecuted by England) considers "above that which is written" to mean "against the admonitions" in the Holy Scriptures (he's quoted in the Haydock Bible, which is like Scofield, but better, it's Young Earth Creationist, it's Catholic, it refuses to bow unambiguously down to Heliocentrism in Joshua 10) and those admonitions being about humility, about clergy being selfless and so on.

It is nothing like an instruction to Bible alone. That would contradict Old Testament precedent. We know for a fact that the injunction for brothers to marry the widow of deceased brothers who have no children was expressed as concerning siblings, but in Ruth both Booz and another guy before him were eligible to marry the widow Ruth, while neither was the sibling of Elimelech. In reference to the law, however, he speaks of "our brother Elimelech" ... sth to keep in mind before attacking the perpetual virginity.

As to the Anathemas of Trent, I've started a defense, but I'm behind schedual. Here are the already extant parts:

130 Anathemas of Trent; the 5 First of Them · 130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification

Gendron

2. The Catholic Church had distorted the Gospel of grace and was under divine condemnation (Gal. 1:6-9).

Me

Gendron at least nominally pretends he found "the Gospel of grace" in Ephesians 2:8,9. We claim we find Catholic doctrine in Ephesians 2:8,9 and 10.

In the Reformers, this very clearly meant free grace theology. That is what Tyndale was burned for. Latomus held to Lordship salvation.

Gendron

As God opened the eyes of the Reformers to see the light of the true Gospel and the glory of Christ, they began proclaiming it and calling Catholics to repent of their gospel of works and sacraments.

Me

So, the tradition of men to cite Ephesians 2:8,9 and shut your eyes when you see the numeral 10, just so you can avoid works, is how God opens eyes? Don't think so.

Gendron

3. Catholic popes had usurped the supreme authority of God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16).

Wherever Scripture is not the supreme authority, Christ will be dishonored, faith will be misplaced, people will be deceived, the church will be ineffective and men will steal glory from God.

Me

The prooftext says that Scripture is godbreathed. It does not deny that Apostles or Apostolic tradition is godbreathed. In fact, we can see that the Apostles, as personal rather than textual authorities are godbreathed in John 20, the account of Resurrection Sunday's evening:

When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost
[John 20:22]

Who breathed on them? The same person who had said:

Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.
[John 8:58]

That makes the Apostles godbreathed personal authorities, since Jesus who breathed on them is God. Bishops and popes are their successors.

Gendron

4. Catholic priests were false mediators who were continuing Christ's finished work of redemption on their altars (1 Tim. 2:5).

Me

That Jesus is the one mediator does not mean He does not communicate with anyone His work of mediation as it applies concretely.

Gendron

This was an outright rejection of the Lord's victory cry on the cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30). Jesus died once, for all sin, for all time and there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 10). Then "He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12)

Me

Thanks, but this needs to be applied to the individual. If you say "no more sacrifice of the Mass" (contrary to Hebrews 13:10) or "no more absolution by priests" (contrary to John 20:23), it would logically also follow "no more accepting Christ as one's personal Saviour" which I'm very sure Gendron does not mean.

Gendron

What Did the Reformation Accomplish?

Me

He'll claim, salvation of a remnant or something, I'll claim rupture.

Gendron

1. The Reformers made the Bible available to the people in their own language.

Me

True for England, since several Protestant Bibles preceded the Douay Rheims and since in England translating the Bible had been a legal offense since the time the Lollards were banned.

Not true for the Germanies (to which Vilvoorde, speaking Low German, more precisely Low Franconian, Netherlands as we call it now, belonged). Luther made the first Protestant translation, but 19th translation overall to a German dialect (High or Low).

Gendron

The truth was setting them free from religious bondage. This caused the pope to put a stop to this mass exodus by once again putting the Bible on their list of forbidden books.

Me

The Bible was never on the list of forbidden books. Protestant translations of it are. And mistranslations aren't the Bible. Of the old (non-modern) English ones, only Tyndale and the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims are not repeating Calvin's mistranslation about repetions being forbidden.

Gendron

2. The Reformers re-established the Word of God as the supreme authority over popes, traditions, and church councils (2 Tim. 3:15-16).

Me

Again, the passage says nothing of the Bible needing no interpreter. St. Timothy had known the Old Testament since infancy, and needed St. Paul to tell him what it really means, so did the Beroens.

Gendron

As the inspired Word of God, Scripture must be used to test and correct all other authorities.

Me

As the godbreathed successors of the apostles, the episcopate must be used to test and correct men of the world and that would include their misconceptions about the Bible?

But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.
[1 Corinthians 2:15]

When Catholic clergy in Germany is called "Geistliche" (spiritual), this is in reference to this verse.

Gendron

3. The Reformers re-established the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Head of His Church.

Me

RE-established?

Like Jesus had left His Church and they needed to call Him back? Check Matthew 28:16—20!

Gendron

How dare the pope steal this title from the One who purchased the church with His own blood (Eph. 1:22; Acts 20:28).

Me

Given by Christ and received by Peter is not the same as stolen by Peter (or his successors).

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood
[Acts Of Apostles 20:28]

OK, the Holy Ghost placed them to RULE the Church of God ... sounds like given, not stolen.

Mike Gendron seems incapable of even reading his own proof texts.

Gendron

4. The Reformers recovered the most important doctrine of justification, which is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, all for the glory of God alone.

Me

RE-covered?

Like by truncating the quote Ephesians 2:8 to 10 into just Ephesians 2:8,9?

Gendron

This doctrine answers man's most important question, "How can a sinner become right with God?" Watch Mike's recent message on Why the Reformation Was Necessary which highlights eight ways the Roman Catholic Church distorts the doctrine of justification.

Me

I'll name one way in which Mike Gendron justified it. To Allie Beth Stuckey, he claimed that he came "to his senses" (as he'd see it) over reading Ephesians 2:8,9. He didn't say Ephesians 2:8 to 10, though.

This subject, I'm usually doing on Great Bishop of Geneva!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Francis Borgia
10.X.2024

Sancti Francisci Borgiae, Sacerdotis e Societate Jesu et Confessoris, cujus dies natalis pridie Kalendas Octobris recensetur.

* Gavin Ortlund, pretending it was a "renewal within the Church" goes on to the other extreme. He denies the overthrow of one (ecclesial) government and putting another in its place, that is however exactly what happened in Wittenberg in both the years when Luther was in Wartburg and when he returned. Mass was changed, sacraments were changed, Luther arrogated to himself powers of visitation as if he were a bishop ... when his disciples the brothers Petri returned from Wittenberg to Sweden, their deeds provoked exiles and uprisings to remain Catholic, abroad if one had the resources, at home if one was poorer and more generous in giving one's life.