A time machine back to the 1500's to talk to Martin Luther...,

[GKC]

You ask why?

One of the reasons why there is more than one Protestant denomination today is that back around the time in history when Luther lived (1520), several other strong, highly-intelligent, and stubborn personalities were born and lived, and these men also became Reformers and started up their own group of “Protestants” and gained a huge following.

The obvious one is John Calvin (1536), who wrote the first systemized theology of the new Protestant faith (Institutes); the work is still studied today by the various Calvinist denominations.

John Knox (1560) was also around over in Scotland, starting up the Presbyterians.

King Henry VIII (1534) started up the Anglicans–now HE was a strong personality who wouldn’t take “No” for an answer!

Ulrich Zwingli (1519) was the leader of the Anabaptists. There were numerous other lesser-known leaders of Anabaptist sects; this movement is a little harder to pin down than the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans.

There were others, but these men had the personality types that were capable of breaking away, starting up, leading, and sustaining their own religious movements, which continue to this very day. And persecution (mainly, being killed) of Anabaptists by the Catholic Church seemed to encourage the start of even more Anabaptist groups, and this mindset is still true today–the various Evangelical groups (the descendants of the Anabaptists) often start up because of conflict and trouble in their denominations.

Consider, too, that at that time in history, the world was still pretty separated, and each of these men lived in a different section of the world separated by various geographic features. This meant that these areas were isolated from each other, and news travelled a lot slower than it does today. This was helpful and made it a little easier for a strong personality to start something up and gain followers.

I can’t help but wonder how things would have gone if something like the internet had been available. The internet has been very good for Catholicism because through websites like this, a lot of misconceptions can be corrected, and people can debate. I can testify that CAF has been, for the most part, very helpful to me as a convert to Catholicism. But back then, most people didn’t even know how to read, and so they had little choice but to accept the leadership of the literate people who were “above” them socially.

Although there were simliarities in each of these new Protestant religions (namely, that they broke with the authority of the Catholic Church ), they were also very different, and are the ancestors of the hundreds of denominations of Protestantism today. (Please don’t toss around the “33,000 denominations and growing” figure, which is not accurate and is a result of playing with the arithmetic to achieve a desired end. Using this figure makes Catholics look ignorant to knowledgeable Protestants and weakens Catholic apologetics.)

I hope this answer is helpful to you and others.

I call it well said. The “33,000” bit particularly.

And the bit about Ol’ Hank.

GKC

 

[Jimmy_B]

If the fallen world screams against Luther, that raises him in my estimation! But remember, we don’t follow Luther as he obviously had many faults - we try and follow God.

I can’t answer for those that don’t hold our views.

What happened has happened, and I think my would be to dust off our evangelical hats and go out into the world.

My pastor is a Marine - and I remember him saying that this is great time and place to be a Lutheran in a paraphrase of Lieutenant General “Chesty” Puller:

“They are in front of us, behind us, and we are flanked on both sides by an enemy that outnumbers us 29:1. They can’t get away from us now!”

I could be wrong but it does appear that you do follow Luther, a man and the father Protestantism. The Catholic Church was created and founded by Jesus Christ and the bible is a Catholic book, whether or not non-Catholics read it and take it out of context… It’s still a Catholic book; A book that was approved by the Catholic Church and by Catholics popes and not a Lutheran book. Luther did not produce the bible. He had nothing to do with the bible. Your denomination, when they received this Catholic book, they received it has a gift from both God and his Roman Catholic Church… Right?

 

[Cat]

You may want to research this claim, and re-post your findings. I have a strong suspicion Zwingli was not “the leader of the Anabaptists.”

JS

My source is Church History in Plain Language, 2nd. Ed., , 1995, Word Publishing, by Dr. Bruce Shelley. At the time he wrote this book, Dr. Shelley was Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary.

I made my statement based on the information in Chapter 25, “The Age of the Reformation,” p.249. This is the chapter about the Anabaptists, and there is a lot of description of what the Anabaptists believed and taught (very similiar to what modern Evangelical Protestants believe).

Also, there is a statement that the Anabaptists preferered the name “Baptists,” because they didn’t believe that infant sprinkling constituted a true baptism, so they didn’t consider their baptisms were “re-baptisms.”

I made my statement about Zwingli based on the following sentence: “Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz were at first supporters of the fledgling reformation in Zurich led by Ulrich Zwingli.”

The chapter gives a good description of the public debate in Zurich, with Zwingli declared “the winner.” A “historic baptism” at the Manz house was done, and the first Anabaptist congregation was formed in the village of Zollikon. All of this was done under Zwingli’s watch–he was “the people’s priest.”

Dr. Shelley’s book gives a very fair and accurate description of the Early Church and makes it clear that the Early Church is “the Catholic Church.” In fact, back when I was first investigating Catholicism, I read Shelley’s book alongside of our parish’s Apologetics Class history teacher’s lectures, and there was perfect agreement between what the priests and teachers taught, and what Shelley wrote. Shelley truly writes “in plain language”–just the facts, no preaching or persuading. His book is not anti-Catholic at all, and it’s not one of those “Jack T. Chick” histories that makes the Catholics out to be monsters and the Protestants “true Christians.”

I’ve also read the book, Triumph, by Crocker, which is a Catholic-written Church history, and again, I found no conflict between the information in Shelley’s book and the Catholic history account.

For these reasons, I feel fairly confident that Shelley’s description of the Anabaptist movement is fairly correct. I do realize that there is a 3rd edition of Church History in Plain Language, and perhaps changes have been made in the Anabaptist chapter. But I don’t have that edition.

 

[guanophore]

My source is Church History in Plain Language, 2nd. Ed., , 1995, Word Publishing, by Dr. Bruce Shelley. At the time he wrote this book, Dr. Shelley was Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary.

Keep up the good work!

2 Tim 2:15-16
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

If a Catholic scholar, a skilled Catholic apologist and a Religious historian got into a time machine with a lap top computer and traveled back to the 1500’s to talk to Martin Luther, could they have prevented the Protestant splint from Catholicism?

Perhaps. Perhaps not though. Even today’s Catholic scholars with their laptops isn’t necessarily enough to convince those whom have already fallen into protestantism.

 

[benjohnson]

I could be wrong but it does appear that you do follow Luther, a man and the father Protestantism. The Catholic Church was created and founded by Jesus Christ and the bible is a Catholic book, whether or not non-Catholics read it and take it out of context… It’s still a Catholic book; A book that was approved by the Catholic Church and by Catholics popes and not a Lutheran book. Luther did not produce the bible. He had nothing to do with the bible. Your denomination, when they received this Catholic book, they received it has a gift from both God and his Roman Catholic Church… Right?

Not to derail the thread, but we view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church. A proper Lutheran church has 2000 years of history, not 500.

Except for implying that we follow Luther and not God, nothing you said upsets me in the slightest - as one of my Catholic friends kindly said after our service: “This is the real deal, isn’t it?”

I think so myself, otherwise I would leave.

 

[TertiumQuid]

My source is Church History in Plain Language, 2nd. Ed., , 1995, Word Publishing, by Dr. Bruce Shelley. At the time he wrote this book, Dr. Shelley was Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary.

Greetings. You earlier stated, “Ulrich Zwingli (1519) was the leader of the Anabaptists.” There’s nothing in Shelly’s book that verifies this. On pages 268-269, he explains how a “Grebel, Manz and their followers” defied the City council of Zurich and thus “the first Anabaptist congregation, the first free church (free of state ties) in modern times, was born.” Zwingli did not lead this movement, rather, he sided with the City Council against this movement. Notice on p. 268, “Zwingli, however, would have no part of this revolution.” Zwingli would actually go on to approve the persecution of members of this movement. Now if Zwingli was “the leader of the Anabaptists” you’ll have to explain to me why he approved of drowning convicted Anabaptists.

For these reasons, I feel fairly confident that Shelley’s description of the Anabaptist movement is fairly correct. I do realize that there is a 3rd edition of Church History in Plain Language, and perhaps changes have been made in the Anabaptist chapter. But I don’t have that edition.

Shelly’s book is a good introduction to church history, but I’m fairly confident that Zwingli was not “the leader of the Anabaptists” and no edition of Shelly’s book will verify he was.

JS

 

[TertiumQuid]

But this thread has enlightened me to something in particular. I had no idea Protestants were so emotionally connected to Luther. I’m not emotionally connect to any Pope except for those that I was aware of living during my life time. Any Pope prior to Pope John Paul II I have zilch feeling for. I suspect most Catholics are like that about Popes from decades or centuries ago before their life.

Actually, I’m not a Lutheran, and would disagree with Martin Luther on a variety of issues. I began studying Luther because of discussions like this. I started reading all sorts of negative stuff posted by Roman Catholics about Luther and simply decided to look up the charges as I came across them. I was quite surprised at what I found. While Luther certainly wasn’t perfect, and while he certainly made mistakes (and even at times made those mistakes sinfully), he certainly wasn’t like how he’s been described in this very discussion. One of Luther’s earliest Roman Catholic opponents felt Luther was a child of the devil, the fruit of a union between Satan and Luther’s mother (who later regretted not having murdered him in the cradle). What I’ve read here is simply a footnote to this early opponent of Luther’s, perhaps not always as harsh, but still in the same ballpark.

That being said, I would argue this very discussion demonstrates that it’s quite a large number of Roman Catholics here that have* an emotional reaction* to Luther rather than the few Protestants that are “so emotionally connected to Luther.” Quite frankly, for me, I worship no man, so where Luther was wrong, he was wrong. On the other hand I do have the desire to see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do we love our neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in our words. If we bear false witness against our neighbor, we are not loving him.

JS

 

[JustaServant]

Actually, I’m not a Lutheran, and would disagree with Martin Luther on a variety of issues. I began studying Luther because of discussions like this. I started reading all sorts of negative stuff posted by Roman Catholics about Luther and simply decided to look up the charges as I came across them. I was quite surprised at what I found. While Luther certainly wasn’t perfect, and while he certainly made mistakes (and even at times made those mistakes sinfully), he certainly wasn’t like how he’s been described in this very discussion. One of Luther’s earliest Roman Catholic opponents felt Luther was a child of the devil, the fruit of a union between Satan and Luther’s mother (who later regretted not having murdered him in the cradle). What I’ve read here is simply a footnote to this early opponent of Luther’s, perhaps not always as harsh, but still in the same ballpark.

That being said, I would argue this very discussion demonstrates that it’s quite a large number of Roman Catholics here that have* an emotional reaction* to Luther rather than the few Protestants that are “so emotionally connected to Luther.” Quite frankly, for me, I worship no man, so where Luther was wrong, he was wrong. On the other hand I do have the desire to see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do we love our neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in our words. If we bear false witness against our neighbor, we are not loving him.

JS

Not every Catholic on this thread was disecting Luther’s mental or spiritual state. There are many Catholics on this forum, myself included, who refuted that arguement.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Not every Catholic on this thread was disecting Luther’s mental or spiritual state. There are many Catholics on this forum, myself included, who refuted that arguement.

Yes, I realize that, which is why I was careful not to write, “Every Roman Catholic…”

JS

 

[Jimmy_B]

Not to derail the thread, but we view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church. A proper Lutheran church has 2000 years of history, not 500.

Except for implying that we follow Luther and not God, nothing you said upsets me in the slightest - as one of my Catholic friends kindly said after our service: “This is the real deal, isn’t it?”

I think so myself, otherwise I would leave.

All denominations that broke away from Catholicism have their own founders and so, in that sense, they all follow a man. I’m not implying that you “worship” the founder of your denomination, I’m sure you worship God alone. The fact is though that you worship God, in the context of the man, or handful of men involved in the founding of your denomination. You also have religious leaders who teach, what they and others in your church believe is a infallible doctrine, even though they won’t use the word infallible. Finally, your denomination has a clearly defined and documented history and it is not 2000 years old.
Isn’t this correct?
Your thoughts?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Not to derail the thread, but we view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church. A proper Lutheran church has 2000 years of history, not 500.

Except for implying that we follow Luther and not God, nothing you said upsets me in the slightest - as one of my Catholic friends kindly said after our service: “This is the real deal, isn’t it?”

I think so myself, otherwise I would leave.

*A proper Lutheran church has 2000 years of history, not 500. *

**

History of the LCMS

---

The roots of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod run deep, tracing back to 1847 when Saxon and other German immigrants established a new church body in America, seeking the freedom to practice and follow confessional Lutheranism. Initial members, which included 12 pastors representing 14 congregations from Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, New York and Ohio, signed the church body’s constitution on April 26, 1847, at First Saint Paul Lutheran Church in Chicago, Ill.
Originally named The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States, the name was shortened to The Lutheran

Church—Missouri Synod in 1947 on the occasion of our 100th anniversary.

The First President

---

Walther’s Mausoleum
The Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther (October 25, 1811 – May 7, 1887) served as the first president of the church body. As a young pastor, Walther joined the Saxon Germans who immigrated to the United States in 1839, and at the age of only 27 found himself leader of the group that settled in Perry County, Missouri. Dr. Walther played a key role in the founding of the LCMS in 1847, and he served as the church body’s first president, holding office from 1847 to 1850 and again from 1864 to 1878.

More Here
**

 

[Cat]

Greetings. You earlier stated, “Ulrich Zwingli (1519) was the leader of the Anabaptists.” There’s nothing in Shelly’s book that verifies this. On pages 268-269, he explains how a “Grebel, Manz and their followers” defied the City council of Zurich and thus “the first Anabaptist congregation, the first free church (free of state ties) in modern times, was born.” Zwingli did not lead this movement, rather, he sided with the City Council against this movement. Notice on p. 268, “Zwingli, however, would have no part of this revolution.” Zwingli would actually go on to approve the persecution of members of this movement. Now if Zwingli was “the leader of the Anabaptists” you’ll have to explain to me why he approved of drowning convicted Anabaptists.

Shelly’s book is a good introduction to church history, but I’m fairly confident that Zwingli was not “the leader of the Anabaptists” and no edition of Shelly’s book will verify he was.

JS

Forgive me for reading through the paragraphs too quickly. I will concede your points.

However, it is accurate to state that Zwingli was one of the major Reformers, and that was the point of my post. The question I was attempting to answer was, “Why isn’t there just one Protestant denomination today? Nobody seems to be able to answer this question. Why?”

My answer was that many different men with strong personalities led various Reforms, and people followed the leader that was closest to them geographically and who offered them what they were looking for. Voila–many Protestant denominations!

As time went by, other strong-minded men and women came along and started up more new sects of Christianity, and that’s how we ended up with so many denoms.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Forgive me for reading through the paragraphs too quickly. I will concede your points.

However, it is accurate to state that Zwingli was one of the major Reformers, and that was the point of my post. The question I was attempting to answer was, “Why isn’t there just one Protestant denomination today? Nobody seems to be able to answer this question. Why?”

My answer was that many different men with strong personalities led various Reforms, and people followed the leader that was closest to them geographically and who offered them what they were looking for. Voila–many Protestant denominations!

As time went by, other strong-minded men and women came along and started up more new sects of Christianity, and that’s how we ended up with so many denoms.

 

[TertiumQuid]

However, it is accurate to state that Zwingli was one of the major Reformers, and that was the point of my post.

Yes, I was nitpicking. My apologies to you.

JS

 

[benjohnson]

]All denominations that broke away from Catholicism have their own founders and so, in that sense, they all follow a man.

With respect, and in my opinion, this is a silly as saying that “Catholics follow the Joseph Ratzinger.” I hope by putting it in those terms how you can see that what you are telling me doesn’t even bother me.

Given that I respect you, I don’t want your words to be ineffective in persuading me, so I would say that you try another way to convince me of my Chruch’s error.

I don’t expect, nor ask, that you believe what I say about us following God - but I am explaining how a proper Lutheran is immune to the idea that we have to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in order to have what we feel is most important, namely salivation given to us by Christ crucified.

To respond to your second post, it doesn’t bother me not that the corporate body of my church is only a few tens of years old - our traditions and teaching are valid and continuous form the time of Christ. I fully expect that in a few hundred years, not even this country will be here. My children may be speaking a different language. But the one holy, catholic and apostolic church will still be here, of which I claim to be a part of.

Of course, If I didn’t believe this, I would be Catholic, or perhaps Anglican or Orthodox.

 

[anika001]

May be so, if that scholar was able to convince that, catholics also believe in salvation by grace alone and not by regular church attendance or doing good works.

 

[wondrousgnat]

The first time I heard the 33,000 number I accepted it. But then thinking about it I realized that I probably could not name more than 20 denominations. Could that number include the independent store front church around the corner?

 

[JustaServant]

Yes, I realize that, which is why I was careful not to write, “Every Roman Catholic…”

JS

You might want to point that out on your blog. Since you only seem to emphasize the negatives about this thread in your post there.

 

[gcnuss]

All denominations that broke away from Catholicism have their own founders and so, in that sense, they all follow a man. I’m not implying that you “worship” the founder of your denomination, I’m sure you worship God alone. The fact is though that you worship God, in the context of the man, or handful of men involved in the founding of your denomination. You also have religious leaders who teach, what they and others in your church believe is a infallible doctrine, even though they won’t use the word infallible. Finally, your denomination has a clearly defined and documented history and it is not 2000 years old.

Jimmy,

It seems to me that Lutheranism – or any of the early church bodies that came out of the Reformation – didn’t just spring up out of nowhere. That 1500 years of church history that preceded the reformation is part of their history, the foundation of their existence. There would be no Lutheran church if the Catholic Church had not existed. Lutherans would not confess the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds if they had not come into use during those 1500 years. The apostles and the early church fathers are parts of our history. Without them we would not exist. Holy Scripture is a part of our history – and the scriptures predate the Reformation by centuries.

In summary, the faith that I have been given is not a product of Luther. It is not captive to teachings that are less than 500 years old. To be sure, Luther’s interpretations of Holy Scripture influence my beliefs but so do the teachings of many others who preceded him.