SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Our Catholic friends and neighbors have a new head. We have a head too... only he's not new.
Here are my thoughts: Habemus Papam.
Here are my thoughts: Habemus Papam.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The intention is good; the rhetoric is stirring; the theme is excellent; the doctrine is the infallible truth of Scripture; but the history might need a little work. Luther's break with the Papacy is generally regarded as a complex and gradual development. Puritanism is usually traced back to the Marian exile. And covenanting martyrs predate 1680 by many years.
Thank you for your patient reply. The point about Luther relates to the statement that it was at the Leipzig debate that LutherI can see why it would be stated that way for rhetorical effect but I generally think it is good to let history get in the way of a good story, especially if the history is serving the purpose of highlighting the importance of biblical doctrine.Ben's blog said:"suddenly understood [the doctrine of papal authority is the linchpin that holds (Roman) Catholicism together" ].
Can you refer us to any sources that definitely put the time that Luther came to his understanding of this point either earlier or later than this debate?
Nice piece.
Shouldn't that read something like "doctrinal corruption follows, and..." ?Again, it seems whenever a mere mortal assumes the title “Head of the Church,” doctrinal corruption and biblical worship get suppressed.
Armourbearer's points are always well made, but I do like your piece, Ben. It may take the history at a gallop but sometimes that's an advantage! You end up with something good and pithy, as here
Only one sentence looks problematic:
Shouldn't that read something like "doctrinal corruption follows, and..." ?Again, it seems whenever a mere mortal assumes the title “Head of the Church,” doctrinal corruption and biblical worship get suppressed.
Unless the thought is that doctrinal disagreement is suppressed?
I can't remember who said it, but one of the Scots Presbyterians said of the Act of Supremacy that England did not so much remove Popedom as just receive a new Pope!
I can't remember who said it, but one of the Scots Presbyterians said of the Act of Supremacy that England did not so much remove Popedom as just receive a new Pope!
Whoever said it was not being quite fair. The Church of England has never exalted its Archbishop or any of its hierarchy in the Roman way.
Most of its troubles don't come from authoritarianism but from being too ready to welcome any and every shade of opinion. Which is just the position the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland arrived at, a little further down the line. If you read the 39 Articles, that was the C of E as it began, and if only it had continued!
probably not, at least not THE antichrist. Henry was a pragmatist like all the Tudors. His chief interest was less in setting himself up as a spiritual authority than in establishing the principle that "the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England".does that make Henry viii the
Anti-Christ?