Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Something that's been bothering me

"...the historic Biblical Christian faith recovered at the Reformation"
"...the proper historic orthodox and Biblical theology recovered during the Protestant Reformation"
"...the proper Biblical theology recovered at the Reformation"
"...the proper Biblical doctrine recovered at the Reformation"

The above four quotes are taking from the articles and missives of Rev. Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries. I could cite more examples of Ken's use of phrases similar to this, but I think it would be unneccessary. So why bring it up? My issue is this; Ken points to, as you can see above, the "historic orthodox Christian faith recoverd at the Reformation." Ken also frequently cites Jude 3; "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." Emphasis mine, because Ken often cites that specific portion of the verse.

I say all that to say this; if the faith was once for all handed down to the saints, how was it "recovered at the reformation"? If it was recovered, that would indicate that it was lost at some point. But how could it be lost when the Scriptures state that it was handed down once for all?

Is there anybody out there?



Blogger Chris L said...

I've got to say that this has me rather puzzled, as well.

While I tend to disagree with a number of practices within the Roman Catholic church, I'm not quite so ready (as the folks you've mentioned seem to be) to consign them to the outer darkness of apostasy.

Additionally, I find infinitely more confidence in the scriptures and the early church than I do in the writings of the Reformers and the TR churches of today. Just seeing Spurgeon's name and quotes tacked onto things nearly triggers the gag reflex anymore...

9:19 AM  
Blogger iggy said...

Ken has no grasp of history and seems to think God was not able to actually keep those He saves...

In that Ken denies "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saint."

If anything was recovered at the Reformation was the Scripture. Yet, Luther loved the RC church and did not ever want to leave it but was forced to over his views.

Personally I think much wrong doctrine was developed along with some very good doctrine at the Reformation... And i would wager that Luther would not agree with these quotes very much. I also think Luther would not think that the Reformation was the end all and would encourage all to study more and seek deeper and deeper into the depths of Scripture...

Here is the biggest thing Ken misses... Luther hated the Book of James... and the Book of Esther... He disagreed with James and since Esther did not mention God he felt it should be taken out... so with that how does arrive at these conclusions when the major Reformer himself did not believe in certain books of the bible?

And those are just a few thoughts off the top of my head.


1:25 PM  
Anonymous Todd said...

I would just like to say that the TRUE church was recovered by the RESTORATION, not the Reformation.

I can go waaay conservative on Ken if I desire - I come from a church of Christ background, and I'm prepared - albeit reluctantly -to out-foolish him.

By the way, I don't truly believe the first sentence. Good day.

11:57 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home