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

[TheLittleLady]

That depends on the Protestant. The teachings and beliefs are not monolithic and can vary widely even within a denomination.

For most of the “Evangelical” groups, they simply teach that the Catholic Church was a denomination formed by Constantine, it became corrupt and then the Reformation. They believe that other churches were happily chugging along without being Catholic from Year 33 AD.

That individual churches spread across the world after the death of Christ by the Apostles and other evangelists. They continue “church planting” ministries today. This is the universal invisible “body of Christ”.

 

[hvizsgyak]

Whoops, my mistake. Sorry, I thought you were one of our wonderful protestant friends. God be with you, carry on.

 

[Episcopalian]

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

It sounds like you’re offended that he provided unsubstantiated facts. But facts they are. Please address the core argument: current Catholic teaching developing and being defined over thousands of years rather than being in place as you know it since day 1

Below are several reference points illustrating this core point you can address for the group.

Thanks!

Transubstantiation | Definition & Doctrine

Transubstantiation, in Christianity, the change by which the substance (though not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes Christ’s real presence—that is, his body and blood. The doctrine of transubstantiation was incorporated into the documents of the Council of Trent.

www.britannica.com

First Council of Nicaea | Description, History, Significance, & Facts

First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, which took place in 325 in the ancient city of Nicaea (now Iznik, Turkey). The council condemned Arius and the Arian heresy that Christ is a created being and revised the creed to clarify the equality of God the...

www.britannica.com

 

[JonNC]

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.

Not offended. Sounds like our intentions are the same.

 

[EZweber]

Please address the core argument: current Catholic teaching developing and being defined over thousands of years rather than being in place as you know it since day 1

Catholic public revelation was complete form the death of the last apostle, presumably John. However, we have still not finished developing the implications of Tradition. We rarely define anything unless a definition is needed.

 

[hvizsgyak]

The reason I came back to this thread was to guide you (who I thought was protestant, sorry again) to another thread under the world news category. The thread deals with the company Netflix and how it is threatening to pull out operations in Georgia if the governor signs the Heartbeat bill into law. Gd’s Kingdom is where we are all hoping to go. While on this planet though we are called to be a shining light on a hill. We need to remedy our differences and start shining so the world has a moral compass in improving life for all - especially the most vulnerable.

 

[ReadTheBible]

It sounds like you’re offended that he provided unsubstantiated facts. But facts they are. Please address the core argument: current Catholic teaching developing and being defined over thousands of years rather than being in place as you know it since day 1

It goes beyond just traditions changing but any sound writing showing the fallibility of the popes or dogmas of Catholicism are always defended with linguistic terms.

We don’t have to go back 1000’s of years. Look at what the current pope has to say about God.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” he said speaking of God “created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

Didn’t Jesus tell us that God has no limits? “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible**; but with God all things are possible**.”

The pope is trying to ride the fence between what a lot of scientists believe vs what scripture teaches. Forget about the linguistic arguments of morals and dogmas of Catholicism for a minute. The sitting pope is calling our Lord and Savior a liar. That’s called fruits we can see. This is indeed about faith and morals as either one can believe this so called big bang happened all by itself and time itself produced humanity or one believes in scripture. That is faith because neither can be proven. But, I’m sure the sitting pope keeps his infallibility

Many scientists think themselves wise beyond the fairy tales they believe that scripture is. I’ll be quite blunt in saying the theory of Evolution offers zero evidence on the origin of life. You may hear from time to time that “Science” is one step closer to figuring out the riddle of life. It is nothing but lies and if you are really interested in learning from a leading expert I advise you look up Professor James Tour.

 

[steve-b]

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

Episcopalian:

It sounds like you’re offended that he provided unsubstantiated facts. But facts they are.

Then there won’t be any problem for him giving the references

Episcopalian:

Please address the core argument: current Catholic teaching developing and being defined over thousands of years rather than being in place as you know it since day 1

Below are several reference points illustrating this core point you can address for the group.

Thanks!

. transubstantiation | Definition & Doctrine | Britannica

OK

“Transubstantiation” was a later word to describe the real presence . Re: the real presence, as you can see by the link, has been doctrine since the beginning.

AND

here’s an explanation of transubstantiation.

Episcopalian:

Council of Nicea / definition & facts
. First Council of Nicaea | Description, History, Significance, & Facts | Britannica

OK

What is your question?

 

[steve-b]

It sounds like you’re offended that he provided unsubstantiated facts. But facts they are. Please address the core argument: current Catholic teaching developing and being defined over thousands of years rather than being in place as you know it since day 1

ReadTheBible:

The sitting pope is calling our Lord and Savior a liar. That’s called fruits we can see. This is indeed about faith and morals as either one can believe this so called big bang happened all by itself and time itself produced humanity or one believes in scripture. That is faith because neither can be proven. But, I’m sure the sitting pope keeps his infallibility

Where does he do that? Be specific with your reference

 

[ReadTheBible]

I already did. The sitting pope said “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything"

God doesn’t need a wand. He spoke everything into existence.

 

[steve-b]

I already did. The sitting pope said “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything"

God doesn’t need a wand. He spoke everything into existence.

You restating a quote , is NOT properly referencing a quote. Show the source properly referenced.

 

[Hodos]

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.

Considering Paul considered the doctrine of justification of enough importance to wish that the one’s stirring up the controversy in Galatia be cut off for adding requirements to justification, I would say that doctrine is pretty central, which explains the concern of the Reformers. I would say that some other doctrines that have been up for debate are in the realm of adiaphora because the Bible either does not discuss it directly or with sufficient clarity that a dogmatic statement is required. The early Church Fathers, in their wisdom were concerned that doctrine be declared in a way that said only just enough to cover what was supported by scripture without attempting to say more. This has not always been the case though. That being said, I would not consider the Reformers to be on the same playing field as the Monophysites. First, Luther didn’t leave the Church, he was ex-communicated for his scriptural teaching on the doctrine of justification. Luther always considered himself part of the Church Catholic.

True, but that does not mean he is not allowed to define it.

Not sure what you are responding to. I never said that doctrine doesn’t need to be defined. My point is that doctrine needs to be defined in accordance with what scripture says, and such doctrinal declarations have authority and weight BECAUSE they are scripturally sound.

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.

It depends. It is not a circular argument on its face to say someone is in error if it can be established by objective evidence that someone is indeed in error. A circular argument is when someone declares that something is true, and when challenged on why it is true, they use the premise itself as the reason why it is true. So if I say, my Church says your doctrine is in error. And when challenged on why the doctrine is in error, the response is, because my Church says it is in error, that would be a circular argument. It is not a circular argument to say, your doctrine is in error, and when challenged on that statement, to say because the doctrine contradicts or is demonstrably not supported by the evidence being presented (in this case scripture). So it depends on the argument being made. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Hodos]

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.

You can disagree if you like, but the term private interpretation is meaningless to me, particularly because it is demonstrable that the entire Church does not hold agreement on all doctrine declared by Rome. Otherwise we would be one Church, which according to you, is not the case.

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?

Couple things on this one. First, Luther did not attempt to make himself the infallible authority for all things doctrinal. He pointed to scripture as the infallible God-breathed possession of the Church which norms our proclamation of the gospel. As a person with at least average reading comprehension skills, who has access to scripture, and is a baptized believer, then yes, I think my judgment on whether something is supported or not supported by scripture can be valid. So if someone tells me Jesus was not human, and scripture says otherwise, yeah, I am very comfortable making a reasonable judgment that that person is espousing something that isn’t supported by scripture. I can make statements that something definitely is or is not a valid expression of doctrine. It is amusing to me that somehow when it comes to apologetics, using reason and textual evidence to support an argument is somehow “prideful” or “arrogant.” This judgment however, is never pointed back at the person making the accusation.

 

[kainosktisis]

I know. You were quoting that other person, HD0521. I just happened to grab the quote from you from that person. Just saying…

 

[adf417]

This is indeed about faith and morals as either one can believe this so called big bang happened all by itself and time itself produced humanity or one believes in scripture. That is faith because neither can be proven. But, I’m sure the sitting pope keeps his infallibility

Yet another great example of misunderstanding infallibility.

 

[Episcopalian]

You restating a quote , is NOT properly referencing a quote. Show the source properly referenced.

You sound extremely frustrated that folks aren’t making references to their opinions or stated facts.

Unfortunately you being the source police doesn’t add much to the conversation and, to be honest, is weary on my eyes and scrolling finger.

I’m sorry you’re so frustrated, but refuting these points (if that’s your goal), and being a witness, would be better accomplished by establishing well sourced counter points of your own.

Can you do that for the group?

If you’re trying to be picayune, you’re doing a wonderful job, so keep doing what you’re doing.

I’ll keep you in my prayers this Sunday as I’m attending an Episcopal Mass.

 

[GKMotley]

When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything "

Well, it’s the National Catholic Reporter, but there is this:

Pope Francis: 'Evolution ... is not inconsistent with the notion of creation'

www.ncronline.org

And it’s not something I haven’t heard before. Chesterton said something similar.

 

[tonyh12]

Truth is Holy Spirit stayed as promised with our church and science helps us explain God works in his universe, god is indeed no magician he is the almighty god Creator of heaven and earth who created us in ways we cannot imagine his depths are unfathomable yet science helps us understand his works we see in his universe. A magician is in the world using ungodly power, he is outside the world and time so yes he is no magician he’s much more the alpha and omega. The pope is pointing to power of God and saying that he is here if we look for him even in the science and the world about us and there is no contradiction between what we measure and see and what we believe about his power as Creator.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Luther always considered himself part of the Church Catholic.

And Jews consider themselves true followers of God. Difference?

My point is that doctrine needs to be defined in accordance with what scripture says, and such doctrinal declarations have authority and weight BECAUSE they are scripturally sound.

Because majority thinks they are scripturally sound? There is virtually no definition beside appealing to opinion of people who don’t even hold authority to preach like Apostles or their successors do.

It is not a circular argument on its face to say someone is in error if it can be established by objective evidence that someone is indeed in error.

While we can use objective evidence to establish someone as thief, we appeal to juridical system and judges- those hold authority to proclaim evidence as objective and true or not. In your system, everybody is a judge and that either suggests relativism or contradicts Scripture- Peter tells us to not hold to our own interpretations, but those of Church and Lord requires certainty of faith from Apostle Thomas- if there is only opinion, how do we get certainty? Our own abilities are very limited in this sense. After all, if everybody were able to make objectively right pronouncement based on Scripture, there wouldn’t be that many Protestant denominations with different opinions. Without authority to interpret something as metaphysical and full of parables as Scripture (written by people in different time of different cultures) infallibly, there is virtually no way to get it right and be sure about it.

Luther did not attempt to make himself the infallible authority

No, he made himself the interpreter though. Luther also based many things on Scriptural interpretation and later changed them, he allowed Duke of Saxony to practice polygamy because he did not want to lose his political support (and based it on being his religious head too). I do not want to point fingers there, but Luther’s interpretation of Scripture was not objective either. If we believe we are more objective than direct successors of Apostles, their successors or their successors (and etc etc), where does that put us? Humility and obedience are both virtues, I’m sure you would agree.

As a person with at least average reading comprehension skills, who has access to scripture, and is a baptized believer, then yes, I think my judgment on whether something is supported or not supported by scripture can be valid

I believe Popes have been baptized, could read and were believers. Popes affirm Catholicism. Why are they wrong then? If I say you misinterpret Scripture, what authority do we appeal to, beside ourselves?

 

[Hodos]

And Jews consider themselves true followers of God. Difference?

Luther confessed Christ as Lord.

Because majority thinks they are scripturally sound? There is virtually no definition beside appealing to opinion of people who don’t even hold authority to preach like Apostles or their successors do.

Actually this would be your argument for doctrine, not mine. You are relying on the argument of consensus, whereas my argument says something is true because it is by nature true.

While we can use objective evidence to establish someone as thief, we appeal to juridical system and judges- those hold authority to proclaim evidence as objective and true or not.

This would be a red herring. My faith tradition does not cast aside the role of the Church in its God ordained duty to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. It upholds it. Feel free to read our confessions on this matter (Augsburg Confession, Article V). What it doesn’t do is conflate the Church’s role with a claim to infallibility simply because it has an office to execute. Again, “ought” doesn’t mean “does.” I think we discussed this earlier.

No, he made himself the interpreter though.

I don’t even know what this means. This is a ridiculous statement on its face, and it is a claim that Rome doesn’t apply to herself making it self-defeating.

I believe Popes have been baptized, could read and were believers. Popes affirm Catholicism. Why are they wrong then? If I say you misinterpret Scripture, what authority do we appeal to, beside ourselves?

Depends on the doctrine. I will be glad to stand with you and the Pope on those doctrines that are clearly supported by scripture. If it is not clearly supported by scripture, then we can discuss and I would challenge why you would declare as “doctrine” something that wasn’t proclaimed in the apostolic writings themselves. If it is contradicted by scripture I will reject it outright because ultimately we are under God’s authority, not in the place of adjudicating what God should have revealed.