It is my understand that John Calvin arrived at Geneva in 1537; and then, because of various theological disagreements and conflicts, was exiled a year later. Then, some years later (1541 I think it was), he not only returned to Geneva, but had been *invited* to do so. QUESTION: Why was John Calvin invited to return to Geneva?

I'm starting a more thorough journey into understanding Anabaptism and neo-Anabaptism (largely through Hauerwas), but I've not used any "generalist" resources yet and so it's not entirely clear where writers are drawing their ideas from at times. So, my two questions: i) Do Anabaptist thinkers draw heavily upon the church fathers? ii) If so, who is the most notable thinker from the tradition(s)? iii) Is there a resource which attempts to show connections and/or tensions between Anabaptists and the church fathers? Thanks!

The *Deuterocanonical books* were included in the Septuagint, but not the Hebrew Bible. They are mostly included in the Catholic Old Testament, but not in the Protestant one. I understand the choice was made by Luther, who called the deuterocanonical books > Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read Why weren't the deuterocanonical books considered equal to the Holy Scriptures?

My question is as it is written. Do Protestants view the Reformation as primarily religious and theological or do they go into more sociological and historic detail? If so which details and to what degree? --- I think church history is something Christians should know, so I am curious about the Protestant church on this matter.

Since the original Great Schism, the Orthodox church has seemed pretty unified (at least compared to the Catholic Church). During the radical reformation, Anabaptists were persecuted throughout Germany and Switzerland. This led to some settling in present day Russia and Ukraine. Was there any point where a similar movement occurred in the Eastern Orthodox church?

The documentary series *This Changed Everything: 500 Years of the Reformation* includes a section in episode 1 about Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora. Dr. Frank James (President and Professor of Historical Theology at the Biblical Theological Seminary) includes his input as well, and says that it was due to their love for each other. > Narrator: Martin Luther turned the idea of marriage on its head when he married a runaway nun, Katharina von Bora. In a society that views marriage as a financial and social contract, Luther's marriage is revolutionary. > > Dr. James: Well, there was no social status to be gained for the two of them getting married, and there was no money. I mean, he didn't have any money, and she didn't have any money. So what did they have? They had love. […] Before it was based on social status and a dowry. Suddenly, this whole notion of marrying someone because you love them becomes a significant paradigm shift in the concept of marriage. This is in contrast to the Wikipedia page of Katharina von Bora , which states that Luther arranged marriages for runaway nuns like her so that they could be provided for > Luther at first asked the parents and relations of the refugee nuns to admit them again into their houses, but they declined to receive them, possibly as this was participating in a crime under canon law. Within two years, Luther was able to arrange homes, marriages, or employment for all of the escaped nuns—except for Katharina. […] > > Katharina had a number of suitors, including Wittenberg University alumnus Jerome (Hieronymus) Baumgärtner (1498–1565) of Nuremberg and a pastor, Kaspar Glatz of Orlamünde. None of the proposed matches resulted in marriage. She told Luther’s friend and fellow reformer, Nikolaus von Amsdorf, that she would be willing to marry only Luther or von Amsdorf himself. While it's clear that Katharina stated her desire to marry Luther, it's not clear to me that the two chose to marry out of mutual love for each other (in other words, it wasn't a love marriage ). Which account is correct? Was Martin Luther's marriage to Katharina von Bora due to their love for each other?

Europe underwent major economic upheavals during the creation of Protestantism (cf. E. Michael Jones, *Barren Metal* or *Goy Guide to World History* ). Is this one reason why Protestants upheld iconoclasm ? Was it a sense of necessity or utilitarianism (that having a minimally decorated church is better than having no church at all) that inspired or justified their iconoclasm ? In other words: Was there an economic reason for Protestants' iconoclasm ?

After the Reformation got into swing and Rome started losing significant numbers of followers Rome responded with the Counter-Reformation. The basic plan was unfolded at the Council of Trent . After the Council of Trent the Secretariat of State was heavily developed to create a diplomatic network of Nuncios. How effective is the Secretariat of State? Would the Protestant movement have been more successful without their machinations?

Given the phenomenon known as the High Church can it really be said that the Reformation led to complete independence from the Bishop of Rome? How much influence does Rome still have in the Anglican Church?

It seems that [various famous reformers venerated Mary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_Mary) but in my experience there is a general disregard of Mary in modern Protestant denominations. When did this sentiment historically wane? I'm excluding the Lutheran church, which still uses the title "Mother of God" here.

[Samuel Rutherford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rutherford) was an important 17th-century Presbyterian theologian who had significant influence in the drafting of the Westminster Standards, still widely used as a part of the constitutions of many Presbyterian denominations. Recently, during deliberations on marriage in my denomination, a speaker raised the point that Samuel Rutherford and others did not believe that Christian pastors should preside over weddings – that instead, it was the civil magistrate's role to marry people. However, I haven't been able to find evidence that Rutherford believed this. I looked in his *Lex, Rex*, but a cursory search didn't turn up anything. I found a bit of background in J. V. Fesko's *Theology of the Westminster Standards*, which says: > In their deliberations over the creation of the [*Directory for the Public Worship of God*] some divines argued that marriage is merely a “civil contract,” but others, such as Rutherford, believed there is something divine about marriage, but did not regard it as formally part of worship. This doesn't shed much light on the specific question of the Rutherford's view of the role of Christian ministers, however, and Fesko doesn't cite his source on this particular point. What was Rutherford's position on the role of ministers in marriage, and where does he comment on this issue?

I know that the major reformers like Martin Luther, Zwingli, John Calvin, etc. were Roman Catholic priests that became Protestant. According to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, priests can't ordain other priests, only bishops can ordain priests. The question is: Did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli have the authority to ordain ministers like elders, presbyters, and deacons since they weren't bishops but rather priests?

I saw a TikTok video saying that *"The Catholic church is a pagan mixture"* accusation entirely came after the **19th century** and none of the **16th-century original reformers** make that argument. Is that true, or did any of the **original reformers** make that argument?

In an article entitled, Bottoms Up! The meaning of “use a little wine…” (1 Tim 5:23) at the *Orthodox Christian Theology* website, the following comment is made: > John Calvin, though not taking this view himself, speaks of how other > interpreters thought that the passage was not inspired as it appears > irrelevant to the immediate context: > > “No longer drink water.” There are some who conjecture that this > sentence, which breaks off the train of thought, was not written by > Paul. …[I]t is possible that what had been formerly written in the > margin of the Epistle afterwards. That quote from Calvin is a bit shocking to me, as it appears that there was kind of a smorgasbord approach to the Bible during the time of the Reformation that I was not aware of. Unfortunately, the author of the article does not give a reference. However, after a bit of internet exploring, I found the original primary source for the quote here. Are there any examples of 16th & 17th century Reformation era approaches to Scripture (Protestant or Catholic) that has relied upon form criticism to dismiss troublesome passages. or even entire books of the canonical Bible, to make a theological case?

The 1534 Oath of Succession made Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, heir to the throne rather than Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. The oath also recognized the king as supreme head of the church in England, thus formalizing Henry’s break with Rome. **Question**: Besides the Bishop of Rochester (St. John Fisher), were there any other bishops who refused to sign the Oath of Succession? (I suspect he may have been the only one.) According to [**My Catholic Life**](https://mycatholic.life/saints/saints-of-the-liturgical-year/june-22-saints-john-fisher-bishop-and-martyr-and-thomas-more-martyr/) : > All the bishops of England, save Fisher and two others, lost their courage and acquiesced, without a fight, to Henry VIII’s takeover of the Catholic Church in England. Their weakness brought to a sudden, crashing end a thousand years of Catholicism in England. The "two others" are not named; however, I am a little skeptical, as I can never recall having read of any bishop other than St. John Fisher who adamantly opposed Henry's oath. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this.

Did the reformers believe that Christ's church was visible ?

I've seen this meme running around from some Catholic folks responding to Reformation Day Who are these people, and what did they do that (in the minds of Catholics) reformed the Catholic Church more than Martin Luther did? (Luther is that middle square, if it wasn't obvious)

I want to know what went wrong in the Church for it to end up corrupt by the 16th century.

Who won the [Leipzig debate between Martin Luther and Johann Eck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Debate) ? What was the final conclusion? How did it affect to the Reformation? Is a transcript of the debate available online?

In the Reformation, the doctrine of the distinction between the *visible* and *invisible* church was important in the Reformers' claim not to have started a rogue church. I am wondering... + Given that it was common for the Reformers to use the Patristics, did they reference any of the early church fathers on this question? More generally, did the early church fathers speak on it? + How did they relate this doctrine to the concept of the [remnant](http://bible.cc/search.php?q=remnant) in the Old Testament? (I'm looking for actual quotes from church fathers, Reformers, confessional documents, etc.)