I saw this mentioned by Daryl in the SDA Resource Forum, but that is locked.

The article Daryl linked to was excellent and I fully agree with it. This is why I believe the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to continue the Reformation until the close of time on this earth.

We see the Sanctuary Message, the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments, the State of the Dead, the Spirit of Prophecy and the truth about the little horn power as being the continuation of the Reformation in these last days.

What do you believe?

Could you post a link to the article referred to?

Regarding the title of the thread, (and without seeing the above mentioned article) one would have to ask several questions:

1. Did the Reformation in fact fail? This would have to be shown. What were the goals of the Reformation that it failed to achieve?

2. In what way did it fail? Again, this relates to the desired outcomes of those in the Reformation. Martin Luther did not intend to start a new church or denomination, but simply "reform" the RCC. Are we to understand that it failed because it in fact did start a new church/denomination?

I don't think the Reformation started or went forward with specific goals or outcomes in mind, but was more generally a movement and shift in the thinking of the general population similar to and related to the Renaissance, which was also underway at the same time.

I think to say that it "failed" assumes a level of organization and goal-orientation etc., it simply did not have nor intend to have.

But that is just my impression off the top of my head.

http://www.yashanet.com/library/reformf.htm

This is the article I mentioned.

To give a brief answer to your questions; The two main points the Reformation failed on were; 1) The Protestants were not Bible and Bible only and 2) They did follow traditions of men and the Roman Church.

(Sort of) interesting article, but heavily biased and containing factual inaccuracies, or at the very least statements bordering on inaccurate, without reliable documentation to support them.

For example:


The seventh day Sabbath played a very minor role if any in the Reformation. That they "paid a terrible price" is unsupported. The biased author is building a straw-man argument.

Also:

Seriously? The entire Roman Church was going to discard tradition? This statement needs EXTENSIVE documentation.


One would need a clear and supported understanding of just what constitutes "Bible and Bible only" in the minds of the Reformers. (Often referred to as Sola Scriptura, if I am not mistaken.) Actually not even the Bible is "Bible and Bible only." Check Paul's comments in 1 Cor. 11:16, where he appeals to tradition to support his view of women/hair/etc.

We ALL follow tradition of some sort, especially in areas that we feel are either "vitally important" or quite insignificant.

I am not convinced the Reformation failed. Read all of the Great Controversy for a good explanation.

JAK wrote; "The seventh day Sabbath played a very minor role if any in the Reformation. That they "paid a terrible price" is unsupported. The biased author is building a straw-man argument."

I disagree completely. It has always been Rome's challenge to Protestants since the Council of Trent. Also, doctrinal differences existed between many of the Reformers and I believe this was because of their rejection of the Sabbath.


I believe we need to realize the importance of the Council of Trent to Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. I believe many Catholics were prepared to leave the Roman Church if a strong enough case were made by the Protestants. But, they failed to do so because of their rejection of the Sabbath.

Just look at what happened to the Reformation in our time.

Maybe saying the Reformation "failed" isn't quite correct.
The Reformation made some gigantic leaps out of darkness into light. It broke the suffocating hold of the medieval church and brought the scriptures with its truths to the common people. But then it faltered in its advance into truth and drew slowly back.

Why did it falter and draw back instead of pressing on?

Alchemy is correct in his present day assessment of the Reformation -- the protest is being declared "dead" by some pretty prominent people. One startling example of this was Tony Palmer and his enthusiastic reception by a large group of evangelicals, and the message is still proclaimed by Evangelical leaders like Copland.

Now it's true the protest WILL continue, even though it's death may be in the minds of the majority, and urged on in ever stronger measures by the ecumenical minded protestants. The protest may appear to be dead, but a remnant will continue the protest until the end. Truth cannot unite under the umbrella of error.

Yet, the question remains -- why did the main swell of the Reformation falter and retreat and is now steadily returning into the arms of papal primacy?

There are a number of reasons, the council of Trent being one of them.

True. It isn't correct at all.

This assumes that it had some sort of goal it was trying to achieve. I do not think that was the case.

To say something "failed" assumes there were outcomes that were not achieved. What were the desired outcomes for the Reformers? This has not been established.

So, without any stated outcomes, one cannot say whether or not something failed.

This whole discussion seems to be based on some modern person's (ie: Alchemy's and the aforementioned biased author's) idea of what the "Reformation" should have achieved. It has yet to be shown what the reformers themselves had in mind for outcomes.

Please address the above noted scepticism.