How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[JonNC]

JonNC:

HopkinsReb:

I can’t speak to the sarcasm bit, but iyam Luther’s linguistic explanation there is a textbook example of question-begging.

Maybe, but there are two issues brought up.

1. the claim that Luther considered himself his own boss, his own magisterium, and does his contemptuous remarks in the open letter prove it.
   The answer is no to both.
2. was Luther’s serious explanation reasonable. That can be debated

#1 = Yes to both, and it was proven by his own words AND actions.

Steve, you’re wrong and you know it.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Might I suggest y’all each make two posts bashing Zwinglism to help foster goodwill before resuming this argument?

 

[JonNC]

HD0521:

Catholics worship Mary. But Protestants worship the Bible.

Bible worshipping is a really good way to realistically describe sola scriptura.

Neither The Blessed Virgin nor the Bible are worthy of worship.

Sola scriptura is no more bible worship than hyperdulia is Mary worship.

There is enough we disagree on without making up falsehoods about each other.

 

[GKMotley]

Was it Zwingli who smelt of elderberries?

 

[JonNC]

Might I suggest y’all each make two posts bashing Zwinglism to help foster goodwill before resuming this argument?

Darn Swiss.

 

[Hodos]

Christ’s body was divided? This is branch theory, one that has many flaws because in the end it would mean Holy Spirit failed His job to guide us and preserve the Church. Either there is a denomination that got everything right or there is no real way to return to the “right” denomination anyway. It also contradicts Nicene Creed, if that’s of any matter to you. Was Church not unified because Gnostics left Apostles? Did Apostles lose the authority too?

You yourself were saying the body was divided earlier. Is it divided or not? Gnostics did not leave the Church because gnostics were never Christian. They always denied the divinity of Christ, the death and resurrection, and did not believe in justification through Christ but through the obtaining of secret knowledge that allowed the follower to attain their own divinity. In short, they were never “Christian.”

No I am not, I am claiming he has lesser yet similar corner, thanks to Holy Spirit. Apostles couldn’t define anything new either, but when they came and said Sunday will be day of the Lord and not Sabbath, how many could go and say it was against Tradition?

And I am saying this is a circular argument as demonstrated earlier. Just because someone is commanded to remain faithful does not mean they do so. “Ought” doesn’t mean “does.” One demonstrates their faithfulness to apostolic doctrine by examining the doctrine, not by appealing to an office.

I’m implying prophets were sent to help people of Israel, they all claimed to have God’s revelation and proved themselves.

God had to send prophets to the people of Israel to proclaim his word to them because the people, princes, and even priests of Israel did not remain faithful to his prior word. Again, we see the reproof of God’s people, to include those charged with maintaining the faithfulness of the nation by the proclamation of his word as normed by his previous word.

how can one be certain Luther’s interpretation of Bible is the correct one? He changed his doctrine several times, Catholic Church has no recorded change of doctrine afaik, and prophets were told to be false if their words did not come true, they did not change opinions etc.

This is historically inaccurate. We have documents throughout Church history where the Church struggled and debated back and forth on a host of issues to define doctrine. We can see the innovations and additions to what the Apostles proclaimed throughout the corpus of theological writings.

I do not mean to go miracle-hunting, but how can one be certain Luther’s interpretation of Bible is the correct one?

By reading the Bible and comparing Luther’s exposition to what the Bible says. Also, I am not beholden to everything Luther said or wrote because again, Luther is not the standard by which we judge Luther. I am not bound to agree with Luther if or where he contradicts scripture.

 

[TULIPed]

(My Doctor told me elderberries are as good as tamiflu when you have the flu and want to get over it quicker. Carry on.)

 

[GKMotley]

Ok. That might be it. If Zwingli was the one who had the flu.

 

[steve-b]

My point is, where is his source for what was said

Episcopalian:

Your point doesn’t address his.

steve-b:

His point needs a reference. I quote my references copiously. And if I don’t quote a source and someone asks me for it, I’m delighted to give it.

Episcopalian:

Again, it would be more helpful for the discussion here to address his point (current Catholic teaching developing and being defined over thousands of years rather than being in place as you know it since day 1).

If you want I could look up these facts for you?

All I can say, I’m not here to do other peoples homework for them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

HopkinsReb:

I can’t speak to the sarcasm bit, but iyam Luther’s linguistic explanation there is a textbook example of question-begging.

Maybe, but there are two issues brought up.

1. the claim that Luther considered himself his own boss, his own magisterium, and does his contemptuous remarks in the open letter prove it.
   The answer is no to both.
2. was Luther’s serious explanation reasonable. That can be debated

#1 = Yes to both, and it was proven by his own words AND actions.

Steve, you’re wrong and you know it.

I’m right and I know it.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Well, I guess that settles that.

 

[steve-b]

Weak reed.

council of jamnia - Google Search

Yep…

 

[tonyh12]

restorationists like to think the church went bust ie the Holy Spirit went on holiday for ages - a time period roughly equal to from that of from Moses to the resurrection and don’t realise we have the primitive church in catholicsm (grown up) they are trying to remodel without the history of the church fathers

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

You yourself were saying the body was divided earlier. Is it divided or not? Gnostics did not leave the Church because gnostics were never Christian.

Yes, but how far do we move brackets? Is simply believing in Christ enough to be considered true Christian and part of the Church? Miaphysites did not think so when they left Church, neither did Monophysites and followers of many non-orthodox denominations. Church is not defined simply by believing in some basic fundamental thing we all share.

One demonstrates their faithfulness to apostolic doctrine by examining the doctrine, not by appealing to an office.

True, but that does not mean he is not allowed to define it. How much more value do you hold when judging their beliefs? Circular thing is when two Christian groups declare each other to be in error- how to determine who is right? By our fallible views sounds like pride.

This is historically inaccurate. We have documents throughout Church history where the Church struggled and debated back and forth on a host of issues to define doctrine.

Never defined it clearly if She struggled.

We can see the innovations and additions to what the Apostles proclaimed throughout the corpus of theological writings.

I disagree and without private interpretation of Scripture (not one held by entire Church, especially if you define Church way you do) you can not prove me wrong anyway.

I am not bound to agree with Luther if or where he contradicts scripture.

You are not bound to agree with anyone if you THINK they contradict Scripture? Does your judgment hold that much more value than judgment of other people?

 

[HD0521]

I was being sarcastic…sometimes I’m facetious as well. Haha. As a Catholic I know we don’t worship Mary. And as a former Protestant, I know they don’t worship the Bible. I was trying to draw the similarities to how each looks to the other from the outside. Sorry if I offended.

 

[steve-b]

How many traditions in Catholicism must one obey to remain a Catholic?

Re: doctrines/dogmas = truths about the faith one must believe as a Catholic

Re: definitions
From:CCC 2089
Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

 

[EZweber]

Typically it is the Roman Catholic apologist making the claim that the scriptures cannot be understood apart from the infallible interpretation of the magisterium of the Church

Well… given the fact that there have been tens of thousands of contradictory interpretations, infallible authority makes more sense than individual authority.

 

[EZweber]

This is historically inaccurate. We have documents throughout Church history where the Church struggled and debated back and forth on a host of issues to define doctrine. We can see the innovations and additions to what the Apostles proclaimed throughout the corpus of theological writings.

When we say that the Church has never changed its teaching, we essentially mean that there are no ex cathedra statements by the Pope or council documents approved by the Pope on faith or morals that are contradictory. I would be interested if you could show me any.

 

[hvizsgyak]

You are not bound to agree with anyone if you THINK they contradict Scripture? Does your judgment hold that much more value than judgment of other people?

Jesus gave the apostles the Holy Spirit to guide them in discerning the truth. The apostolic faith has been passed on through the ages in the Catholic Church. Why would you leave the Church that was guided by the Holy Spirit to follow the word of anyone outside the Church? Stop throwing up walls to prevent the Holy Spirit from guiding you to the truth. We, more than ever, need to be one in the world’s eyes so we can profess the truth to them with love.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Uh I am Catholic, I am trying to point out that without visible authority it boils down to opinions of fallible individuals, and while Holy Spirit certainly helps us not, He does not keep us all infallible, does he? That’s why Magisterium is such a wonderful gift.