How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[KjetilK]

So where was the Lutheran Church before Luther?

I have now requested three (or now, four) times that you show me, in the Lutheran confessions to which I’m bound, where these are wrong. You have yet to do so, and thus I must conclude that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I have now requested three (or now, four) times that you show me, in the Lutheran confessions to which I’m bound, where these are wrong. You have yet to do so, and thus I must conclude that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

It seems like you’re selectively reading these responses. I responded to this.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I have now requested three (or now, four) times that you show me, in the Lutheran confessions to which I’m bound, where these are wrong. You have yet to do so, and thus I must conclude that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

I’ll give you one small example: Luther changed the creed:

From your link above:
The Third Article.

Of Sanctification.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I have now requested three (or now, four) times that you show me, in the Lutheran confessions to which I’m bound, where these are wrong. You have yet to do so, and thus I must conclude that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Here’s another:

Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints.

1] Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country. 2] For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. 3] He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2:1: 4] If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc.

We believe that Christ has ONE Body; not one on earth and one in Heaven.
The saints in Heaven are not dead, and not devoid of love and concern for us here on earth.
We CAN ask them to pray with us, and since they are cleansed of sin and all propensity to sin (which we are not, fully), their prayers are efficacious.

You see, this is what the Church has always meant by the line in the Apostles’ Creed:
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

(notice how close the belief in the “holy catholic church” is tied into the belief in the “communion of saints”)

If you re-define the terms then you can try to lay claim to the creed. But you deny the beliefs espoused therein.

 

[joe371]

KjetilK;12199309]The question in the OP begs the question. It assumes that ‘Protestants’ believe there is a ‘1500 year old gap’ (and/or that ‘they’ do not bother with anything before the 15th or 16th century), that Roman Catholic ecclesiology is correct, and that there is agreement on this between ‘Protestants.’

First, as we have already pointed out, Lutherans, for instance, do not believe there is a ‘1500 year old gap,’ and we refer to the Church Fathers.

OK. From the 1st century to the 16th century reformation, did the Catholic church introduce doctrinal errors, in your opinion, not to be confused with abuses such as what Martin Luther object to…?

Second, you cannot use Roman Catholic ecclesiology as a starting point of the discussion without begging the question. Take, for instance, the Roman Pontiff. Do you ask the Orthodox how they explain the ‘approximately 1054 year old gap’?

The EOCs were not newly formed churches when the schism occurred, so no.

Do you assume that because they do not recognise his supreme headship, his supremacy (as opposed to primacy), they have to explain this ‘gap’?

no. They can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age.

Third, as a member of the Church of Norway, I am bound to these confessions; the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism. I read these in light of Church history as a whole.

What I have now requested for the third time is for Catholics to actually show me, in these confessions, where these are wrong.

The last two are not wrong if you consider them an exposition of the holy Bible. Catholics do not recognize them just as you probably do not recognize our exposition i.e. the Catechism…

But I can once again assure you that you will not, in any of these confessions, find anything definitive about the number of sacraments, number of books in the Bible, Papal primacy as such, Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura.

I know…

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I’ll give you one small example: Luther changed the creed:

From your link above:
The Third Article.

Of Sanctification.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

That is very silly. Luther did not change the wording from one holy catholic to one holy Christian. The use of the word Christian means Catholic universal and I understand that only some Lutheran Synods in north America still prefer “Christian” in the Creeds due to some lingering anti-Catholic bias.

 

[KjetilK]

I’ll give you one small example: Luther changed the creed:

From your link above:
The Third Article.

Of Sanctification.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

Yet the Apostles’ Creed is part of these confessions, and it uses the word ‘catholic.’

Here’s another: …Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country. 2] For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. …

It is perfectly true that Scripture doesn’t teach invocation directly, and no exegete – neither Catholic nor ‘Protestant’ – would disagree. But I can assure you that Lutherans believe the saints are praying for us.

The EOCs were not newly formed churches when the schism occurred, so no.

They can trace their lineage all the way back to the apostolic age.

It seems to me that you are under the impression that I am some free church person. I am part of the historic Church of Norway, the Church of Sst. Sunniva, Olaf, and Hallvard. The Church of Norway didn’t pop up into existence in 1537. It was founded in 995. Neither the Church of Denmark-Norway (later the Danish People’s Chuch and the Church of Norway), the Church of Sweden, the Church of England, etc. were ‘newly formed’ during the Reformation. None if these were ‘newly formed’ in any way different from the Church of Russia or the Church of Greece.

But your argument will also, if valid, be an argument against churches which the Roman Catholic Church assumes are valid. The Polish National Catholic Church, for instance, was ‘newly formed’ in the 1800s.

The last two are not wrong if you consider them an exposition of the holy Bible. Catholics do not recognize them just as you probably do not recognize our exposition i.e. the Catechism…

Confessio Augustana was written as a ‘discussion document,’ a statement of faith, and Luther’s Small Catechism was a catechism for ‘normal folk.’ The real confessions here are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. The Apostles’ Creed was so important for Luther, as part of Tradition, that he even claimed that should we find something in Scripture that seemed to contradict it, we should assume that we were reading Scripture wrong. The Nicene Creed was also seen, together with the Chalcedonian Definition, as the basis for Confessio Augustana.

 

[joe371]

KjetilK;12199795]Yet the Apostles’ Creed is part of these confessions, and it uses the word ‘catholic.’

It is perfectly true that Scripture doesn’t teach invocation directly, and no exegete – neither Catholic nor ‘Protestant’ – would disagree. But I can assure you that Lutherans believe the saints are praying for us.

It seems to me that you are under the impression that I am some free church person. I am part of the historic Church of Norway, the Church of Sst. Sunniva, Olaf, and Hallvard. The Church of Norway didn’t pop up into existence in 1537. It was founded in 995. Neither the Church of Denmark-Norway (later the Danish People’s Chuch and the Church of Norway), the Church of Sweden, the Church of England, etc. were ‘newly formed’ during the Reformation. None if these were ‘newly formed’ in any way different from the Church of Russia or the Church of Greece.

I made no assumptions…The Church of Norway was founded in 995? Thanks; did not know that…

But your argument will also, if valid, be an argument against churches which the Roman Catholic Church assumes are valid. The Polish National Catholic Church, for instance, was ‘newly formed’ in the 1800s.

 

[estesbob]

I have now requested three (or now, four) times that you show me, in the Lutheran confessions to which I’m bound, where these are wrong. You have yet to do so, and thus I must conclude that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

It’s a pretty simple question.Where was the Lutheran Church before Luther?

 

[Tomyris]

It’s a pretty simple question.Where was the Lutheran Church before Luther?

The simple answer is that the Lutherans believe their church is in continuity with the historical church founded by Christ. It was the Catholic church. They consider themselves part of the Catholic church.

Most Protestants count the number of churches in the world as one. One body. If you say there is more than one, you are denying that you believe that there is one church.

 

[Tomyris]

Adamski,

My impression is that your background as a non-Catholic in a non-denominational church was unconciously restorationist. Possibly they ignored history from 90 AD to 1600, or even 1905 with Azusa. I think those people typically self-select away from a Catholic site, or if they show up, they don’t last long. So I don’t think you will get the answer you are looking for, here, anyway. You might try CARM if you can stomach it.

 

[KjetilK]

It’s a pretty simple question.Where was the Lutheran Church before Luther?

Lutheran is not the designation of a denomination. My denomination is the Church of Norway. It was founded in 995, but went out of communion with the Pope in 1537. The Eastern Orthodox churches went out of communion with the pope around 1054.

 

[joe371]

Lutheran is not the designation of a denomination. My denomination is the Church of Norway. It was founded in 995, but went out of communion with the Pope in 1537. The Eastern Orthodox churches went out of communion with the pope around 1054.

Just curious: I know why the east-west schism occurred. Why did the Church of Norway, founded in 995, break away from the Catholic Church?

 

[KjetilK]

Just curious: I know why the east-west schism occurred. Why did the Church of Norway, founded in 995, break away from the Catholic Church?

For much the same reason as the east-west schism: politics.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Just curious: I know why the east-west schism occurred. Why did the Church of Norway, founded in 995, break away from the Catholic Church?

Papal infallibility only agitates/ delays reunion of all Christians.

 

[joe371]

Papal infallibility only agitates/ delays reunion of all Christians.

Then they better do away with it…Sola Scriptura only agitates/ delays reunion of all Christians. LOL…Just having some fun; it’s late…

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Then they better do away with it…Sola Scriptura only agitates/ delays reunion of all Christians. LOL…Just having some fun; it’s late…

Can one imagine how many Christians would return to Rome? Anyone have the figures of how many Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglicans there are in the world? We are waiting for the Church of Rome to rethink infallibility. And in the Dialogues, much attention is focused on Lutherans entering full communion with Catholics but not accepting infallibility as the Orthodox Church also rejects.

 

[joe371]

Can one imagine how many Christians would return to Rome? Anyone have the figures of how many Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglicans there are in the world? We are waiting for the Church of Rome to rethink infallibility. And in the Dialogues, much attention is focused on Lutherans entering full communion with Catholics but not accepting infallibility as the Orthodox Church also rejects.

Interesting. If RCC overturns infallibility in favor of the position that states that the RCC can and has taught fallibly, doctrinally speaking, and therefore the Holy Spirit is not guiding the RCC into all truth as per John 13:16, then many would join the CC?

Are we on the same page regarding the fact that the CC comprised of all fallible leader, derives its infallibility from God; God gets all the credit; not the leaders…

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Interesting. If RCC overturns infallibility in favor of the position that states that the RCC can and has taught fallibly, doctrinally speaking, and therefore the Holy Spirit is not guiding the RCC into all truth as per John 13:16, then many would join the CC?

Are we on the same page regarding the fact that the CC comprised of all fallible leader, derives its infallibility from God; God gets all the credit; not the leaders…

Keep in mind that the Church has never accepted human infallibility. This dogma from 1869 as well as the immaculate conception/ assumption of Mary are probably a mistake. Though Lutherans can accept the primacy of the Pope and these Marian beliefs, we can never affirm human infallibility.

 

[JonNC]

I think the point is this:

If there was no gap, then the Church with whom the first protestants split was in fact the Church begun by Christ and endowed by Him with Authority to decide doctrine.

Therefore, giving them the benefit of the doubt, they must believe in a gap of some duration, else they are advocating outright rebellion against Christ-given authority, and therefore advocating sin.

This is a great question, and one Lutherans should consider, but a couple of points:

First, Adamski’s original post:

Originally Posted by **Adamski **
This was the real question I had in a previous thread that got derailed. Personally leaving my non denominational church and coming home to the Catholic Church if both had a solid answer from the bible I had to go with the catholic one because it was rooted in history such as the writings from the first three centuries after Christ.

When ever I show protestants of any kind writings such as the Didiache, polycarp, and ignatius of Antioch. They say “well false teachers were there from the beginning and I have the truth from the bible”. This had come from Lutherans to baptists

There are here two false contentions regarding Lutherans:

1. that we reject the ECF’s and the writings of the early Church as “false teachers or teachings”. Nothing could be more wrong.
2. that since we believe that some errors have crept into the teachings of the Bishop of Rome, that this means that a “gap” has occurred in the Church. Again, nothing could be more wrong.

The problem in large part has to do with language.
The gap language implies the restorationist movement, which Lutherans are not!
It also implies that, somehow because of what we see as errors in teaching, the Church does not exist among those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Again, completely wrong.

Where the word is preached and the sacraments administered within the congregation of believers, there is the Church. There is no gap, unless one can point to a time when word and sacrament went away. To my knowledge, they have not ceased since Pentecost, and in fact have occurred in the West, as well as in the East among those not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Lutherans have never denied this.

Two final points:

1. Not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome does not mean we believe there was a gap, nor does it mean we are separated from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Unity is a far better model for all Christians, and I believe unity must center around the Bishop of Rome, the pope, but that lack of unity does not imply that Christ’s Church had been missing for 1500 years.
2. When you say: “If there was no gap, then the Church with whom the first protestants split was in fact the Church begun by Christ and endowed by Him with Authority to decide doctrine.”, there is dispute whether or not that is entirely true, the Reformation notwithstanding. The dispute between East and West, on the very issue of authority, IMO, calls into question the claim of full authority of either Rome or Orthodoxy.
   From this Lutheran’s perspective, if that unity were restored, then so would the unquestioned authority, no matter how it would be configured, and our division would have to be resolved.

Jon