# Why did the Reformation (apparently) lose steam so (relatively) quickly?



## Davidius

The early church took the world by storm and eventually converted the Roman Empire. For centuries all of life was defined by the Church. It sounds kind of like the postmillenialist's dream, except for the corruptions that began to pop up in the Middle Ages. 

But why does it seem like the movement which began in the 16th century tanked out so quickly? From what I've read of modern Reformation historians, things were already beginning to fall apart in the early to mid 18th century, with the rise of Unitarianism and Arminianism in America, and Socinianism/other heresies in Europe even earlier. Today our denominations are some of the smallest in the world, numerically and geographically. Conservative Episcopalianism and Lutheranism seem basically extinct, except maybe in Africa for the Anglicans. Presbyterians keep having to divide in order to keep a semblance of orthodox unity, which will eventually run us into the ground. As a whole, we have little to no influence on culture. What was it that caused a lack of sustainability in the Reformed movements of the 16th and 17th centuries?


----------



## christianyouth

Hey David,

Another good question! I'm looking forward to reading the responses that this questions gets.

In Christ,
Andrew


----------



## moral necessity

Well, to give the overall main answer, it occurred due to a withdrawal of the Spirit of God and a lessening of his influence. As to the specific ways he caused this to happen, I do not recall all of the details at this time. Let me think on it.

Blessings!


----------



## Davidius

moral necessity said:


> Well, to give the overall main answer, it occurred due to a withdrawal of the Spirit of God and a lessening of his influence. As to the specific ways he caused this to happen, I do not recall all of the details at this time. Let me think on it.
> 
> Blessings!



Yeah, I'm looking for something more along the lines of secondary causes.


----------



## panta dokimazete

My opinion - precisionism to the nth degree along with passionate and unyielding individualism. Autonomy guised as theonomy.

**ducks head**


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Of course one could say the abandonment of Biblical worship but I do not want to get Panta involved in another 10 page worship thread


----------



## panta dokimazete




----------



## Davidius

Well, I'm hoping that it's something a little more complex than that. We like to give very simple answers. It makes it that much easier for us to justify ourselves.

Something relevant to my question is the relationship between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Is it a coincidence that former came right on the heels of the latter? There may much more complex issues at work. 

Anyway, keep the thoughts coming!


----------



## Jon Peters

Davidius said:


> The early church took the world by storm and eventually converted the Roman Empire. For centuries all of life was defined by the Church. It sounds kind of like the postmillenialist's dream, except for the corruptions that began to pop up in the Middle Ages.
> 
> But why does it seem like the movement which began in the 16th century tanked out so quickly? From what I've read of modern Reformation historians, things were already beginning to fall apart in the early to mid 18th century, with the rise of Unitarianism and Arminianism in America, and Socinianism/other heresies in Europe even earlier. Today our denominations are some of the smallest in the world, numerically and geographically. Conservative Episcopalianism and Lutheranism seem basically extinct, except maybe in Africa for the Anglicans. Presbyterians keep having to divide in order to keep a semblance of orthodox unity, which will eventually run us into the ground. As a whole, we have little to no influence on culture. What was it that caused a lack of sustainability in the Reformed movements of the 16th and 17th centuries?



I'm not sure I buy the premise that the Reformation has tanked. I also don't buy your description of the early church; it certainly wasn't a postmillenialists dream. I recall there was a bit of controversy over a few slightly important doctrines. 

I think we have romanticized an era a little too much. There were lots of divisions within the ranks of those trying to reform the church even in the very early stages.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Well, you have kind of nailed it, again in terms of autonomy vs theonomy. 

Enlightenment ideals began the long slide that has reached its zenith in modern times. 

With the challenges of critical thinkers driving the ideal of Man as the pinnacle of Nature and the church either embracing the philosophy and fitting God to the prevailing presupposition or withdrawing into ever inward spiraling circles of refinement and dissolution with no overarching temporal authority...


----------



## Davidius

Jon Peters said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The early church took the world by storm and eventually converted the Roman Empire. For centuries all of life was defined by the Church. It sounds kind of like the postmillenialist's dream, except for the corruptions that began to pop up in the Middle Ages.
> 
> But why does it seem like the movement which began in the 16th century tanked out so quickly? From what I've read of modern Reformation historians, things were already beginning to fall apart in the early to mid 18th century, with the rise of Unitarianism and Arminianism in America, and Socinianism/other heresies in Europe even earlier. Today our denominations are some of the smallest in the world, numerically and geographically. Conservative Episcopalianism and Lutheranism seem basically extinct, except maybe in Africa for the Anglicans. Presbyterians keep having to divide in order to keep a semblance of orthodox unity, which will eventually run us into the ground. As a whole, we have little to no influence on culture. What was it that caused a lack of sustainability in the Reformed movements of the 16th and 17th centuries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I buy the premise that the Reformation has tanked. I also don't buy your description of the early church; it certainly wasn't a postmillenialists dream. I recall there was a bit of controversy over a few slightly important doctrines.
> 
> I think we have romanticized an era a little too much. There were lots of divisions within the ranks of those trying to reform the church even in the very early stages.
Click to expand...


Were the heretics not expelled? Do we not rightly recognize the men who fought against Arianism and Pelagianism as men who accomplished something great? Sure there were problems, but unlike our day, the problems seem to have been solvable back then.

As far as disagreeing with my choice of language (the Reformation has "tanked"), that's fine. But I want to know why you disagree with the nature of the premise, based on the examples I gave.


----------



## Davidius

panta dokimazete said:


> Well, you have kind of nailed it, again in terms of autonomy vs theonomy.
> 
> Enlightenment ideals began the long slide that has reached its zenith in modern times.
> 
> With the challenges of critical thinkers driving the ideal of Man as the pinnacle of Nature and the church either embracing the philosophy and fitting God to the prevailing presupposition or withdrawing into ever inward spiraling circles of refinement and dissolution with no overarching temporal authority...



Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.


----------



## Zenas

I agree that the period is romanticized too much. 

The men were undoubtedly men like us, with all of the imperfections, quirks, etc. It is sure that they fought against the heresies of Arminianism and Pelagianism, but so do we. Theirs was a fight much more publicized because of the nature of the time. Travel, kingdom expansion, dissemination of education, the printing press, etc. were all brand new vehicles used to spread and publicize their fight, but they do no more fighting than we do today. 

I don't think the reformation "tanked" at all, but rather, the novelty of it all wore off.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

A major difference was the death of monarchy and the rise of republican government...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Davidius said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you have kind of nailed it, again in terms of autonomy vs theonomy.
> 
> Enlightenment ideals began the long slide that has reached its zenith in modern times.
> 
> With the challenges of critical thinkers driving the ideal of Man as the pinnacle of Nature and the church either embracing the philosophy and fitting God to the prevailing presupposition or withdrawing into ever inward spiraling circles of refinement and dissolution with no overarching temporal authority...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think that with the advent of Internet _apologia_ and the failure of scientific naturalism to "deliver the goods", so to speak, we may be entering into a new age of the church triumphant


----------



## Zenas

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> A major difference was the death of monarchy and the rise of republican government...



Good point!


----------



## Zenas

panta dokimazete said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you have kind of nailed it, again in terms of autonomy vs theonomy.
> 
> Enlightenment ideals began the long slide that has reached its zenith in modern times.
> 
> With the challenges of critical thinkers driving the ideal of Man as the pinnacle of Nature and the church either embracing the philosophy and fitting God to the prevailing presupposition or withdrawing into ever inward spiraling circles of refinement and dissolution with no overarching temporal authority...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think that with the advent of Internet _apologia_ and the failure of scientific naturalism to "deliver the goods", so to speak, we may be entering into a new age of the church triumphant
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. Although naturalism has failed to do what it promised, people seem to be turning to a sort of loose deism, rather than true religion.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Zenas said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> A major difference was the death of monarchy and the rise of republican government...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point!
Click to expand...


Thanks. I do not think we as Americans can truly understand the _*negative*_ effect "democracy" has had on the Church as a whole.


----------



## Christusregnat

Davidius said:


> What was it that caused a lack of sustainability in the Reformed movements of the 16th and 17th centuries?



Davidius,

The triumph of the early church was not without cost.

The truimph of the Reformed faith was not without cost either. Luther's rejection of papal authority was *wrongly interpreted *by wicked men to mean that they could reject God's authority (both in the bible, in the church and in the state). Many "free thinkers" look upon Luther as a hero, and I have read articles confirming as much. Luther, I'm sure was rolling over in his grave.

There is the usual list of suspects, but if I may introduce another topic which I believe has contributed to the decline in Christendom: eschatology. The backbone of building the church, and the commonwealths of the world was the belief that Christ was Lord of ALL: not just the church, and the space between my ears. I'm not saying everyone had to be post-mil; all I'm saying was that the martyrs didn't think they were losing Rome by being eaten by lions; they believed they were _*conquering *_the Roman Empire by the gospel of Christ. Guess what? They did.

Today, we hear prominent theologians say that "reclaiming the culture is a waste of time". Guess what? We lose.

It's not about pre- post- or a-; it's about the direction the church expects the future to take. Generally, we expect it to "tank"; guess what? It does.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## CharlieJ

Davidius, I think you ask an excellent question that deserves thoughtful answers. I am not qualified to give those answers, but I hope more will pop up.

Are things as bad in modern Christianity as you present them? I greatly agree with you that the American church is plagued with many woes. But I do think we see the Spirit of God strengthening the Church in different geographic areas at different periods in history.

Reformation/Post-Reformation saw immense changes in Germany and the Netherlands, then Britain. 

Victorian and Elizabethan England was a bastion of Protestantism and missionary endeavors. 

The United States had a distinctly Christian founding and has experienced a great measure of blessing and revival in its relatively short history. I wish I had the citation, but I remember seeing in a history class a snippet from the journal of a faculty member at Yale. He remarked that before Timothy Dwight became President (1795), he thought that there were less than five regenerate students on campus. That would be like saying that GPTS, PRTS, and WSCal had only a dozen regenerate students among them.

Today, we see amazing revivals taking place in China and the Philippines. While much of the teaching is not Reformed, I do not doubt the genuineness of most of the conversions, and I hope that as the Church matures there, they will become more doctrinally conscious.

So, sorry that I didn't really answer much of your question, but I'm not sure that the Reformation at its core (justification by faith alone) is quite over.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Zenas said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think that with the advent of Internet _apologia_ and the failure of scientific naturalism to "deliver the goods", so to speak, we may be entering into a new age of the church triumphant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. Although naturalism has failed to do what it promised, people seem to be turning to a sort of loose deism, rather than true religion.
Click to expand...


Well, I think you are seeing the initial stages of the "godless" finding God  - It's our job as agents enabled by the Holy Spirit, to make the right Way so clear they have *no excuse* but to turn to it if they have any desire to be consistent.


----------



## Davidius

*changed the title in hopes of preventing emotional responses and focusing on the meat of the question*


----------



## panta dokimazete

Davidius said:


> *changed the title in hopes of preventing emotional responses and focusing on the meat of the question*



I still stand by my first response - it is what it is, because we are who we are.


----------



## Davidius

CharlieJ said:


> Are things as bad in modern Christianity as you present them? I greatly agree with you that the American church is plagued with many woes. But I do think we see the Spirit of God strengthening the Church in different geographic areas at different periods in history.



This is an excellent response that deserves a moment of reflection. Note that I did not say "Christianity" in the OP, rather "the Reformation." It may well be true that some form of Christianity is flourishing under the power of God's Spirit in places such as Asia and South America. This, however, could actually _contribute_ to the dilemma presented in my original question. What does this say about our sustainability? It's not like we haven't been sending out missionaries (note: I am not denying that we are having some of our own effect in places like China). 



> Reformation/Post-Reformation saw immense changes in Germany and the Netherlands, then Britain.



Okay, and those changes lasted until when? 1700? Maybe 1800 at best? For how long have these same nations been on the decline? It sure didn't take Germany, the home of the reformation, to turn around and begin spitting out more deadly philosophy and biblical scholarship than any nation on the planet. 



> Victorian and Elizabethan England was a bastion of Protestantism and missionary endeavors.



Exactly, so what happened? This is the crux of my question. I do not deny that something _happened_ during the Reformation. But why does its shelf life appear to be no where near as long as the early Church which faced challenges as great or greater?



> The United States had a distinctly Christian founding and has experienced a great measure of blessing and revival in its relatively short history. I wish I had the citation, but I remember seeing in a history class a snippet from the journal of a faculty member at Yale. He remarked that before Timothy Dwight became President (1795), he thought that there were less than five regenerate students on campus. That would be like saying that GPTS, PRTS, and WSCal had only a dozen regenerate students among them.



See above



> Today, we see amazing revivals taking place in China and the Philippines. While much of the teaching is not Reformed, I do not doubt the genuineness of most of the conversions, and I hope that as the Church matures there, they will become more doctrinally conscious.



See first paragraph.


----------



## Ravens

David,

Let me preface this post by saying that what I have to say may not be directly applicable to your query. I also don't want to assume or imply motives where they do not exist. That being said, the short point that I hope to make is one that I have thought of relative to my own reflection on these issues, and thus not necessarily any portrayal of where you are coming from.

That being said, the perceived state of Protestantism is often used to undermine the validity of the Protestant churches as true churches, and to show that the Reformation itself was a mistake, and that we are the guilty ones in the schism. I think that issue is at least related to the one you bring up, or, more accurately, someone could use your query in the same way, that is, as an undermining of Protestantism.

I am not an expert in history, and am eager to be corrected where I am wrong, but I believe the same general type of question could be asked of both the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox churches.

Regarding Orthodoxy (assuming, for sake of argument, that they are the true church): Why, within 400 years of rejecting the claims of the Roman bishop and continuing on as the true apostolic church, did Constantinople, the flower of the civilized world, fall to Muslims? How can it be that the true, catholic, apostolic church has lost nearly all of her native lands to the Muslims. Furthermore, when Russia became the standard-bearer for the orthodox world, why did the church end up falling under the yoke of communism and oppression. Why does it have (thinking in "postmillenial" terms) so little impact in the world at large?

Regarding Roman Catholicism: Why have they had such little "success" (in the sense we are discussing) throughout the centuries? Why was all of the Byzantine and Balkan worlds mostly lost to her control after the 11th century? Why, within three hundred years of losing the East, did she also lose Northern Europe, North America, etc., to the Protestant Reformation? Why are Protestant churches still flourishing (as I assume they are) at greater rates in some third world countries, as opposed to Roman Catholic churches? 

More than that, as a Roman Catholic, I imagine that I could look at the atheism and secularism of Europe, the liberalism and actual defiance of papal authority found in American Catholics, and the superstitions associated with much of Hispanic catholicism (maybe that is just a caricature, but that's how I've always viewed it, more or less) and wonder a good bit about my church's "success". 

Like I said, I realize that isn't your question. But I think the two are related. And I imagine that one would have to ask and answer that question regardless of one's ecclesiastic vantage point.

Which leaves me thinking:

1) We are finite, so it is obviously impossible to accurately know the strength and size of the invisible church.
2) Even judging according to the visible church, most of us (myself more than others) probably don't know enough about the history and current state of things (in detail, on a scholarly level, as a lifetime pursuit) to make an accurate judgment of the modern current.
3) Perhaps we are defining "success" or the growth and conquering of the church in the wrong way.


----------



## Zenas

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> A major difference was the death of monarchy and the rise of republican government...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. I do not think we as Americans can truly understand the _*negative*_ effect "democracy" has had on the Church as a whole.
Click to expand...


Well, the general populace controls the government. When the general populace has lost its mind, then it's sort of an inmates running the asylum sort of situation.


----------



## timmopussycat

Zenas said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! But the early Christians took on pagan Greek and Rome, with all of their culture, literary, and philosophical weapons! Plato and Aristotle are no laughing matter, even today. The Roman Empire? Come on! What is our problem? We're not even making in-roads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think that with the advent of Internet _apologia_ and the failure of scientific naturalism to "deliver the goods", so to speak, we may be entering into a new age of the church triumphant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. Although naturalism has failed to do what it promised, people seem to be turning to a sort of loose deism, rather than true religion.
Click to expand...


C. S. Lewis observed that a return to religion, by which he meant "loose deism" would soon result in a revived church since the loose deist is eminently convertable.


----------



## Davidius

Josh,

Thank you for such a helpful post. That really does put things in perspective. I by no means asked the question in order to undermine what we have been doing since we broke from Rome. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I realize that something great _did_ happen in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. 

It's _because_ I see the Reformation as a good thing that I'm so puzzled. Because the initial impact made on the Church and on society by the reformers was so strong, I guess I am just confused by the seemingly almost immediate influx of error, division, and the amazingly quick decline into cultural irrelevance. It makes me want to give up any kind of positive eschatology. If anyone should be able to provide a model for reforming society as a whole, shouldn't we be the ones able to implement that? If we're going back to the early Church, as the reformers claimed, why can't we overthrow Rome? We don't even face the same political barriers the first Christians saw. 

Or, since your post is helping me broaden my thinking about the issue, why have _all_ of the professing Christian churches failed to meet the challenges of our era?


----------



## Zenas

I don't know if I can cop to that though. The lose deist is in just as good of a position as the atheist to deny God and insert whatever idol they want. Both are in a position to deny God, it is only the nature of the idol they replace Him with that changes due to their theistic orientation.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Zenas said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I do not think we as Americans can truly understand the _*negative*_ effect "democracy" has had on the Church as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the general populace controls the government. When the general populace has lost its mind, then it's sort of an inmates running the asylum sort of situation.
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Zenas said:


> I don't know if I can cop to that though. The lose deist is in just as good of a position as the atheist to deny God and insert whatever idol they want. Both are in a position to deny God, it is only the nature of the idol they replace Him with that changes due to their theistic orientation.



 Anyone that denies the triune God is just as much an idolater as the next one. There are no degrees of idolatry.


----------



## DTK

Davidius said:


> The early church took the world by storm and eventually converted the Roman Empire. For centuries all of life was defined by the Church. It sounds kind of like the postmillenialist's dream, except for the corruptions that began to pop up in the Middle Ages.


I, for one, do not share this basic presupposition, and from my own acquaintance with church history I do not find it to be an accurate portrayal of the early church. The wheat has always experienced the mingling presence of tares, and we have yet to witness the reality of the postmillienialist's hope. Time and time again, I have found in the history and testimonies of the ancient church that this was very far from their own perception of their state of affairs.

DTK


----------



## R Harris

Wow, a topic that one could easily write a dissertation on.

I do see the radical individualism introduced by the Anabaptists and the naturalistic philosophies of the 18th century as having a major impact upon things. I also see the affluence that the New England Puritans had built by the late 1600s as producing a sort of slothfulness among the new generation.
Thus, by the 1720s, Puritanism was just about dead, and enlightenment thinking quickly moved into the institutions and homes shortly thereafter. The individualistic revivalism of the Great Awakening fostered by Wesley and to some extent by Whitefield changed matters significantly. And yes, as Benjamin pointed out, worship standards also started to decline. Bushell in his book _The Songs of Zion_ does an excellent job of chronicling what was going on in the presbyteries of Northeast colonies from 1730 - 1800.

As has been mentioned in several other threads, all one has to do is examine the very explicit Christian language in the colonial charters, and the very lack of such language in the Articles of Confederation (1778) and our very own Constitution (1787) to see that enlightenment thinking had taken its toll on Christian thinking and influence, especially regarding the civil magistrate.

This is a very difficult matter for a church. How far do you go to "root out the chaff"? From Romans to Revelation, we constantly see the writers admonishing the saints to steer clear of "strange doctrine," to rebuke those who introduce strange teachings into the church, and to constantly be of the same mind. Obviously we see why; if you don't, you get 21st century American Christianity, where everyone simply believes whatever they want to believe, and everyone does what they want to do.

How do you find the "happy medium"? Is there a happy medium? Trying to find that "sweet spot" between authoritarian church control and the chaos of American Christianity is the quest that everyone searches for but has not yet found.


----------



## markkoller

God often raises up exceptional men for exceptional work. We see this over and over in church history, but these men are rare. In the providence of God, the next generation is by definition weaker because they did not experience the low points that came before the reformation or revival. It seems rare that periods of significant church renewal last beyond a generation or two...the Protestant Reformation being a good example. 

Often the quenching of reformation is traced to something as simple as a failure to evangelize and teach the doctrines of grace to our own families.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I spent a little time considering this subject today and wrote down some thoughts. I hope they are helpful.

Historians distinguish between the first and second reformation (_Nadere Reformatie_ in the Netherlands). There was a decline of spirituality and influence between the two, and the second, while it was, like a comet, perhaps briefer, burned brighter. And so we look for, by the mercy of God, a third reformation to come.

The principles of Reformation have never been without resistance in this world. Satan, wicked men in high places and the human heart have always been at work to subvert what Luther, Calvin and others stood for. The work of God cannot be resisted, but we know it is his work precisely because we couldn’t begin to accomplish what the Reformation accomplished (corporately or personally) apart from his Holy Spirit. There is a long-established pattern of God’s people reaching great attainments and then falling hard. We see it over and over again among the Jews, and John Winthrop foretold that it would happen again if we turned away from our Lord (_A Model of Christian Charity_, 1630):



> Neither must we think that the Lord will bear with such failings at our hands as he doth from those among whom we have lived; and that for these three reasons:
> 
> First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.
> 
> Secondly, because the Lord will be sanctified in them that come near Him. We know that there were many that corrupted the service of the Lord; some setting up altars before his own; others offering both strange fire and strange sacrifices also; yet there came no fire from heaven, or other sudden judgment upon them, as did upon Nadab and Abihu, whom yet we may think did not sin presumptuously.
> 
> Thirdly, when God gives a special commission He looks to have it strictly observed in every article; When He gave Saul a commission to destroy Amaleck, He indented with him upon certain articles, and because he failed in one of the least, and that upon a fair pretense, it lost him the kingdom, which should have been his reward, if he had observed his commission.
> 
> Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.
> 
> Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.
> 
> And to shut this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord, in his last farewell to Israel, Deut. 30. "Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil," in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it.
> 
> Therefore let us choose life,
> that we and our seed may live,
> by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him,
> for He is our life and our prosperity.



The forces of Counter-Reformation utilized force (the Inquisition, Star Chamber, etc.) whenever possible, but also learned that the battle should be met on other grounds (Catholics felt it necessary to prepare a Counter-Reformation Bible, as well as engage in open apologetics or Jesuit-style subversive strategies). Antichrist has many tools, one among them being to mimic Satan’s strategy of appearing as an angel of light. Many Protestants today don’t even know who Antichrist is, which leaves them wide open to his stratagems. Even (Anabaptistic) toleration was used as a weapon, perhaps the most powerful weapon in the adversary's arsenal, a weapon which is a two-edged sword. The same liberties afforded to the godly were afforded to the ungodly. The Edict of Nantes (1598) put Protestantism in France on the chopping block while promising liberty. The covenants were broken, in more ways than one. Compromises were made for the sake of peace and unity (Jeremiah 6.14: “They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.”) The Bill of Rights in England and Scotland (1688) viscerated the attainments of the Covenanters and Puritans a generation or two before at Greyfriars and Westminster. The disestablishment (compared to the previous established church of mother England) of the Christian church at the national level by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment (1791) expanded and codified the Enlightenment ideal of toleration in a way that had never been done before, and which penetrated the Presbyterian church and others to the core. Nursing fathers renounced their duty to the church, and the church renounced their duty to God. The church largely turned within itself and ceased to proclaim the whole counsel of God. In doing so, we pick and choose which Scriptures we want to hear and emphasize and relegate the rest to another era. It is anemic today because we have turned away from the faith of our fathers, even in so-called confessional Protestant churches, and think we are doing well just because we don’t allow female pastors while one Trojan Horse after another is let inside the front door (Martin Luther said: "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every part of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, then I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all battlefields besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."). The family is the nursery of the church and look how fathers have failed their families, and mothers, while children rebel and turn against them (read Thomas Manton’s epistle to the Christian Reader below). National reformation (a concept that is rejected by many Christians, although as William Cowper once said, ‘When nations are to perish in their sins, / ‘Tis in the church the leprosy begins') requires family reformation (as the Directory of Family Worship states), and that has begin somewhere – at home, with us. The finger I am pointing with means three fingers pointed right back at myself. Why has the Reformation fizzled? Look no further than one’s front doorstep or prayer closet. 

Are we a by-word, as Winthrop said? I pray that God would remember the prayers of the saints of old for generations yet to come, that God would not remove the candlestick; but he can do so, and we ought to join trembling with our mirth. We ought to bewail our sins and covenant with him, by God’s grace, to serve him with all of our hearts, minds, strength and souls as long as we live. 

I know that people say the Reformation era is romanticized. I find myself longing for better days, even though I know that the Puritans lived in times of war, plague, persecution, calamity and other judgments. I don’t forget those things at all. To paraphrase Gandalf and Frodo:



> [Self]: I wish the [Enlightenment] had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.
> [Conscience]: So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, [Andrew], besides the will of evil.



I work every day, by God’s grace, for reformation in my own soul, my own family, my own church, and pray for the blessing of God upon all his people, loving the very dust of Zion, by God’s grace, even when she grieves me, resting in the knowledge that God has great plans for her. When you look up on a cloudy day, you may forget that the sun is always shining. But Peter tells us that We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts (2 Pet. 1.19). Amen, so may it be, Lord. May the day star arise and come quickly! Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be the glory. 

These are some of the promises of revival to which I yet hold:

Samuel Miller, _The Earth Filled With the Glory of the Lord_:



> Numbers xiv. 20, 21-And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word: but as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.
> 
> The kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ, Rev. xi. 15.
> Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession, Ps. ii. 8.
> All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him, Ps. xxii. 27.
> From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place shall incense be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts, Mal. i. 11.
> And I will gather all nations, and tongues, and cause them to come and see my glory, Isa. lxvi. 18.
> And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it, Isa. ii. 2.
> His name shall be continued as long as the sun; men shall be blessed in him, and all nations shall call him blessed, Ps. lxxii. 17.
> The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, and the excellency of Carmel and Sharon; they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God, Isa. xxxv. 1, 2.
> And the kingdom, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; and all dominions shall serve and obey him, Dan. vii. 27.
> He shall say to the North, Give up; and to the South, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth, Isa. xliii. 6.
> His way shall be known upon earth, and his saving health among all nations, Ps. lxvii. 2.
> And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, Isa. xl. 5.
> Ethiopia shall stretch forth her hands unto God, Ps. lxviii. 31.
> The isles shall wait for his law, Isa. xiii. 4.
> He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth, Zech. ix. 10.
> All the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God, Isa. Iii. 10.
> We see not yet all things put under Him, Heb. ii. 8.
> But he must reign, until all enemies shall be put under his feet, 1 Cor. xv. 25.
> At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that he is Christ to the glory of God the Father, Phil. 1 10, 11.
> For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea, Hab. ii. 14.



Principles of the Second Reformation
The Attainments of the Church of the Second Reformation.
An Introduction to the Westminster Confession of Faith* - Thomas Manton
The Directory for Family Worship
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/halting-reformation-stop-stop-7945/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/reason-puritan-decline-29116/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/puritans-influence-america-8860/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/catholic-view-antichrist-17326/


----------



## ChristopherPaul

*I will try to keep this as short as possible...*

Throughout Church history new or resurfacing heresies infiltrate the Church and depending on the culture the reaction is different throughout the ages. I believe if you would cut the Reformation out of the 16th century and place it instead in the 4th century you would see a vast different effect. Prior to the Reformation people (Christian or not) had a greater fear of authority and were less individualistic (in general, as a whole society).

The Reformation may have unintentionally accelerated the idea that a man can just leave a church and start a new one according to his liking. Prior to the Reformation this was pretty much unheard of. Excommunication actually meant something and was perceived as a negative action that was quite devastating. 

_Sola Scriptura_ was a reformation back to submission to the word of God AND the Church, but too many took that _Sola _and ran with it as if it meant submission to each and every man's thought as to what he thinks the scriptures mean. So the flood gates opened for schism and the rebellion to authority. They would look at Luther and the like and see their actions as precedence that each and every man can create his own reformation according to his liking whether he was ordained or not. So it was a snowball effect based on misunderstanding and cultural change where authority became relative. To this day _Sola Scriptura_ is still perceived even among those in the Confessional Churches as submission to the Bible but not the Church.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

David's question is a very interesting one. I am by no means an expert in this area, though I do thoroughly enjoy 17th century English history, which ties into this topic somewhat. Based on what I do know of the Reformation in England, I would say it sort of faded in importance for two main reasons (and many other minor reasons): 

1. Insistence on forcing their beliefs/values on the population as a whole (rightly or wrongly) - the Puritans and Reformers imposed their strict intepretation of the law on English society as a whole after the Civil War and Interregum (eg, outlawing theatre). You can argue for or against this, but regardless there was a major backlash that, coupled with the Baroque excesses of Charles II after the Restoration, led to marginalization and general repudiation of the true Reformers, especially the Puritans. 

2. Focusing on theology and the law rather than "ministries of mercy" - I'm not saying theology and the Westminster Assembly weren't vitally important, but the Puritans seemed to focus on these matters to the neglect mercy ministries to the general populace. Going back to David's comparison to the early church, while I agree with Jon Peters than the era is overly romanticized, I also believe they were effective because they served rather than seeking power and glory for themselves. Multiple Roman emperors were frustrated by the Christians' willingness to serve the poor and diseased - something the elite of Rome were unwilling to do. This servant's attitude had a huge impact on the Roman people, and led to the spread and growing acceptance of the Gospel. I'm not saying the Puritans didn't engage in this type of ministry at all, but they seemed to serve the poor and downtrodden much less than the members of the early church. 

So there's my limited answer. Looking forward to more responses on this...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The Puritans, as far as I know, were very much involved in "mercy ministries".


----------



## SolaGratia

Why did the Reformation (apparently) lose steam so (relatively) quickly?

Because it was ALL in our Lords Timing, and I would say that the Reformation did not loosed its "steam" because it is in the heart, kept alive by the Spirit of Jesus. It is a spiritual kingdom first instead of a ecclesiastical, social, political, national matter. 

The true question to be asked is where is the next Reformation happening?

Although, the true answer only the Lords knows where and when.

The things we should be concern regarding the Reformation should be the fruits that God gave us from His Reformation. For example, His word, salvation by Grace through Faith, etc.


----------



## Ivan

SolaGratia said:


> Why did the Reformation (apparently) lose steam so (relatively) quickly?
> 
> Because it was ALL in our Lords Timing, and I would say that the Reformation did not loosed its "steam" because it is in the heart, kept alive by the spirit of Jesus. It is a spiritual kingdom first and instead of a ecclesiastical, social, political, national matter.
> 
> The true question to be asked is where is the next Reformation happening?



I agree...AMEN!


----------



## py3ak

I would suspect that in every particular country or region there were some different factors at work. And I suspect also that the answers you get may say more about the people answering than about what happened before.

For instance, was the Reformed movement running out of steam in England (not totally, of course, but in a goodly measure) the result of the shocking depravity of the Independents in committing regicide and so God's judgment came upon them? Or was the Presbyterian involvement in the Restoration a sort of suicide (or the result of judicially imposed blindness)? The answer may well depend on whether you are an Independent or a Presbyterian, or what your views on government are.


----------



## MW

Ecclesiastes 7:10, "Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this."

The right of private judgment and toleration was the link in the chain between Reformation and Enlightenment.


----------



## kalawine

Zenas said:


> I agree that the period is romanticized too much.
> 
> The men were undoubtedly men like us, with all of the imperfections, quirks, etc. It is sure that they fought against the heresies of Arminianism and Pelagianism, but so do we. Theirs was a fight much more publicized because of the nature of the time. Travel, kingdom expansion, dissemination of education, the printing press, etc. were all brand new vehicles used to spread and publicize their fight, but they do no more fighting than we do today.
> 
> I don't think the reformation "tanked" at all, but rather, the novelty of it all wore off.



Sometimes I think that I see a new "Reformation" (definitely deserving of quotation marks). I wonder if the new printing press isn't the Internet. I wouldn't dare to compare it to the old Reformation. But there does seem to be a new interest in the PR.


----------

