500 years of Protestant reform
To celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, Return to the Gospel will present weekly articles and biographies of several reformers: Girolamo Zachi (January), Theodore Beza (February), Thomas Cranmer (March), Guilherme Farrel (April), William Tyndale (May), Martin Bucer (June), John Knox (July), Ulrico Zuonglio (hay), Joo Calvino (set)
- Farel read the first proposal.
- With biblical evidence and explanations.
- When the opposing party was asked to respond.
- The clerics of Lausanne launched a tedious protest against the debate.
- Mainly claiming that the scriptures recommend peace.
- When a debate would only generate conflict; that a particular church was prone to error; and.
- Ultimately.
- They were not free to debate.
- But had to wait for general advice.
Farel responded to these objections with arguments drawn from the scriptures (which they had misquoted) and from the fathers of the Church who (as he quoted) were always willing to discuss with heretics; he also criticized his references to the General Councils. The clergy with a copy of their response, which was followed by a second and third protest. A long-standing dispute now arises over faith and good deeds. Farel explained that faith in Christ is not in vain and inoperative, allowing the soul to remain a slave to sin; but an active ingredient that has produced good works.
The question that caused the stir was whether good works precede or follow justification. The Papists asserted that good works precede justification and presented the opposite view as a licentious tendency. On the side of the reformers, Farel declared that, far from denying the need for good works, the reformers diligently encouraged them; but he immediately pointed to faith as his true source. “After instilling in a man,” he said, “a feeling of his sin, then we say: ‘God does not want his destruction, but his salvation. He gave his beloved Son to die for us. And therefore, if you, from the bottom of your heart, believe that he suffered for you, and pray to God for forgiveness on his behalf and forsake sin, he will forgive you. Such a doctrine can never lead to evil or ingratitude. On the contrary, will it inflame the heart with love for God and neighbor, and produce visible fruits in the outer life? Then, addressing the clergy of Lausanne, he intentionally censured the lives of these vigorous defenders of good works, and showed that what they called good works were primarily pilgrimages, masses, or absolution.
The second proposal was made by Viret, and since no one proposed to oppose it, Farel largely explained the errors of the Roman Church against which the declaration was addressed.
After Viret defended the third proposal, Farel set out the unsubstantiated doctrine of transubstantiation and great uncertainty, even for believers in it, of whether transmutation on a given occasion has already taken place, as it depends on the ordination and intention of the priest. . , in addition to the regular consecration of the host, he stood out vividly and eloquently the evils that arise from Mass, urged priests to study the scriptures and follow the example of St Paul who, after his conversion, dedicated his life to establishing the faith he once sought to destroy. In response to Mimard, a teacher who tried to advocate for the transubstantiation of the incomprehensibility of divine mysteries, Farel said:?At the same time. You were pushed into this absurdity by the spirit of Marción, who attributed it to Jesus
the mere appearance of a body, and not by the Spirit of God?Disapproving of Mimard’s arrogance toward reformed Ministers, Farel responded to the teachers of the Roman Church who, without the mandate of the scriptures, and under the appearance of divine communications, introduced a multitude of dogmas and observances, invented purgatory, established the time and path of penance for every sin, and raised a wretched sinner at the head of the church and a god.
To the question, “Who are you to pretend to be wiser than parents and the church?” He answered:
“We are poor sinners who believe we have received forgiveness of sins and salvation through Christ. We want to live with the help of your grace, according to your Word, and we strive to encourage others to do the same, being willing to give our lives for your gospel. But who are you who have other objects of worship besides God? Poor wretches who kneel before images without life, without meaning or feeling; servants of the Roman prostitute who deceived the world and drank her princes with the wine of her fornication. The reproach that you have thrown at us, that we “stone” you, falls on your priests and their members. They are bold enough not only to stone us (as I have often experienced, and I ask God to forgive them as I do with my heart), but, when given the opportunity, they burn and torture those who do not act accordingly. that they want. We wish your salvation, so that each of you can know, trust, serve and honor Jesus, and not pay homage to a mere army, with the sacred rat that bit him and that he kept here as a precious relic.
Farel then reported on the various abuses of the Roman Church and asked what gospel they could find.
Calvin then reprised the argument, who very clearly explained his reasons for rejecting the transubstantiation and actual benefits associated with the Lord’s Supper, to which the opposing party did not answer a word; and Tandi, a Franciscan, confessed to the whole assembly that he was convinced by the power of truth and that he would now believe in the pure gospel and fix his life for him.
Viret defended the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh proposals, which had no opposition; in reference to the eighth, Blanchrose, who had already complained that he had been abandoned by priests, repeated a variety of strange statements he had previously made about the Trinity doctrine on which he tried to find analogies in all sciences.
After Viret defended without opposition the proposal on the power and rights of the civil magistrate, Farel spoke of the injustice committed with the ministers of the gospel who were called antichrists and considered men whose purpose was to promote political change, destroy the Church, so that they could more easily dethrone the princes. In return for this slander, he presented the doctrine of the Roman Church that exempts every clergy from fidelity to civilian powers as soon as they are ordained. So if all the inhabitants of a country were dedicated to the Church, civil leaders would not have a single theme, where while, on the other hand, this doctrine excludes princes, who are lay people, from interfering in the affairs of the Church, which are the sole responsibility of priests, who are subject to the Pope as Farel urged judges to abolish the papacy and allow pure preaching of the Word of God; at the same time, he urged the people to thank God for granting them pious leaders. Those who were willing to promote their knowledge of the path of salvation.
Farel later read the ninth proposal, concerning marriage and celibacy, and claimed the honor of the former, taking into account its author, seniority and uses; described the harmful effects of celibacy among the clergy; He reported on the many corrupt and ruined families, as well as the multitude of their illegitimate descendants, exposed in the streets, abandoned and sick, cursing their fathers and mothers, who were the subject of universal discontent, and who were even more in Lausanne than in Geneva. He commented on the extent to which the consciences of the clergy should accuse them, for none of them dared to speak in the debate on this proposal.
It is clear from our record of the debate that Farel has taken the lead in the debate, was initiated and concluded by him, and there was not even a proposal that he did not mention at the time it was discussed, nor did he comment at the end of the debate. Although he was un prepared for the clergy’ protests and objections, he responded with great discretion and compared the scriptures to the scriptures, the parents of the church with the parents of the church, and the decrees of the council with others.
On this occasion the ignorance of the priests was revealed, no less than their immorality, and so attested by the apologies they gave for their silence, and the accusations they made against Farel and his companions, of pride and presumption, as well as the lack of charity to denounce the failures of their opponents.
The debate continued to have an effect. Many of the main people on the Papist side returned home convinced of their mistakes and became the promoters of the Reformation. Farel returned joyfully to Geneva, full of gratitude to God for giving him this opportunity to tell the truth.