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

[Hodos]

Otherwise put, why would God allow the full truth of Christianity to be unknown for a millennium? I see two, not mutually exclusive, kinds of responses.

I think that most Protestants would disagree that this is the case. I think when we look at the apostolic teachings as handed down to us in the scriptures, we do see the full truth of Christianity, and we have always possessed it. The major issue we would have is how much innovation has been added to the apostolic doctrines handed down to us, and what is the impact on that doctrine. Some traditions have been fully in line with what was handed down, while others obfuscate the apostolic gospel and have engendered confusion.

First, one might simply say “And the same to you.” That is, Catholics now have dogma that could not have been wholly known to early Christians, so the same argument applies. Papal infallibility comes to mind, established in 1869 or so.

You are astute in understanding that this would probably be one of the more convincing responses. That there are some doctrines that Rome herself even admits were developments over a great amount of time, and one could justifiably flip the question.

 

[lilypadrees]

Wish I could flag it too. But it must have enough because the"flag" icon isn’t there.

 

[lilypadrees]

@IamBaptist, you seem very hostile in your post. You’ve made so many accusations against the Catholic Church. But where are the links to back up your accusations?

 

[steve-b]

Otherwise put, why would God allow the full truth of Christianity to be unknown for a millennium? I see two, not mutually exclusive, kinds of responses.
First, one might simply say “And the same to you.” That is, Catholics now have dogma that could not have been wholly known to early Christians, so the same argument applies. Papal infallibility comes to mind, established in 1869 or so.
Second, one might argue a historical case for how the protestant view was always known. Baptist successionism doesn’t seem to hold water but I’m sure Christians of the early and middle of Church history, with their diversity of heresy and opinion, harboured a few who could arguably be called proto-protestants. Of course, these would only be a few, so a similar question arises: “Why was the full truth of Christianity withheld from so many for so long?”
I’m only a fledgling Christian so these thoughts might be a bit misinformed. Let me know what you think

Henry Newman while still a Protestant , but doing some serious work on why he is what he is, ( a Protestant, Anglican) , came up with the following phrase after all his study. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.”.

While he didn’t say what follows, using that same history, one could also say the same for E Orthodoxy as well.

So

To be deep in history is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church. Which is what Newman found out… and thus he converted.

 

[Hodos]

Henry Newman while still a Protestant , but doing some serious work on why he is what he is, ( a Protestant, Anglican) , came up with the following phrase after all his study. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.” .

While he didn’t say what follows, using that same history, one could also say the same for E Orthodoxy as well.

So

To be deep in history is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church. Which is what Newman found out… and thus he converted.

I think the study of history cuts both ways. Keep in mind that Cardinal Newman came from an ecclesiastical background that pretty much saw itself as Catholic in all but name only to begin with. In my experience, the study of early church history and the development of doctrine has only cemented my commitment to the Reformation. Take that for what it’s worth.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Henry Newman while still a Protestant , but doing some serious work on why he is what he is, ( a Protestant, Anglican) , came up with the following phrase after all his study. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.” .

While he didn’t say what follows, using that same history, one could also say the same for E Orthodoxy as well.

So

To be deep in history is to be Catholic in the Catholic Church. Which is what Newman found out… and thus he converted.

I think the study of history cuts both ways. Keep in mind that Cardinal Newman came from an ecclesiastical background that pretty much saw itself as Catholic in all but name only to begin with.

If that was the case he would have stayed where he was.

However,

Excerpt from his work from “Newman’s Reader”
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume1/lecture12.html

Read: Lecture 12, Ecclesiastical history, Section 4

Hodos:

In my experience, the study of early church history and the development of doctrine has only cemented my commitment to the Reformation. Take that for what it’s worth.

As Newman points out, REVOLT Reformation

 

[JonNC]

First, which Protestants?

Otherwise put, why would God allow the full truth of Christianity to be unknown for a millennium?

He didn’t. The seven ecumenical councils are a testament to the Spirit’s guidance of the Church Militant.
The divisions in the Church going back more than a millennium is the fault of humans, not God.

That is, Catholics now have dogma that could not have been wholly known to early Christians, so the same argument applies. Papal infallibility comes to mind, established in 1869 or so.

Universal jurisdiction was also not understood the way the Roman See claims it. In fact, it is one of the significant causes of division.

Of course, these would only be a few, so a similar question arises: “Why was the full truth of Christianity withheld from so many for so long?”
I’m only a fledgling Christian so these thoughts might be a bit misinformed. Let me know what you think

As I said, the full truth has not been withheld. Human sin just causes us to “…see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

 

[niceatheist]

Unless you’re a Jehovah’s witness or a Unitarian, you’re almost certainly going to be in a church that accepts the Nicene Creed, and just as likely going to accept the Council of Chalcedon (unless you’re an Oriental Christian) and that’s going to put you into the 4th and 5th centuries. By that point there were already pretty established church structures through most of Christendom (heck by the fifth Century, most Christians were members of the Imperial church in one form or another). Apostolic succession was fully established, so unless you’re in one of the outlier churches, it would require a lot of gymnastics to get from the 1st century to whenever your church was established.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

He didn’t. The seven ecumenical councils are a testament to the Spirit’s guidance of the Church Militant.
The divisions in the Church going back more than a millennium is the fault of humans, not God.

This just pushes argument from 70 AD to 800 AD. Despite that, there were almost no Christians who would believe in universal priesthood = ministerial priesthood, iconoclasm was suppressed by Ecumenical Council, Sola Scriptura was never universally held to be true either (before Reformation). This is basically what argument is about.

First, which Protestants?

That’s a nice catch. I suppose some High Church Anglicans would not have hard time reconciling with what Early Church taught. I mean, from my view, other than Western spirituality, Monarch role (that might not even be difference though) and Filioque, Anglicans are very similar to Orthodoxy.

Universal jurisdiction was also not understood the way the Roman See claims it. In fact, it is one of the significant causes of division.

Eark:

Roman See does not claim it was understood this way, but Church changes practical things, called discipline. Roman See was always understood to be pillar of faith and truth, and Pope was understood to be highest authority above other Bishops. According to Pope Gregory the Great, Pope has power to unilaterally overrule entire Eastern Synods outside his jurisdiction. This has logical consequence of infallibility, otherwise him overruling entire Synods is simply illogical.

As I said, the full truth has not been withheld.

Yes, but Five Solas were not a practice in Early Church. Now I do not mean the name, but meaning behind most Solas was contradicted by life of normal Christian 70.AD → Reformation.

 

[JonNC]

This just pushes argument from 70 AD to 800 AD. Despite that, there were almost no Christians who would believe in universal priesthood = ministerial priesthood, iconoclasm was suppressed by Ecumenical Council, Sola Scriptura was never universally held to be true either (before Reformation). This is basically what argument is about.

Lol. There’s the problem with Protestant. Why would you think I believe in iconoclasm. But you are indeed right, neither universal jurisdiction or sola scriptura was universally held, and the latter was, in many respects, a response to the former.

That’s a nice catch. I suppose some High Church Anglicans would not have hard time reconciling with what Early Church taught. I mean, from my view, other than Western spirituality, Monarch role (that might not even be difference though) and Filioque, Anglicans are very similar to Orthodoxy.

Yep.

Roman See does not claim it was understood this way, but Church changes practical things, called discipline.

Then you can’t complain about by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. If development of doctrine is okay…

Yes, but Five Solas were not a practice in Early Church. Now I do not mean the name, but meaning behind most Solas was contradicted by life of normal Christian 70.AD → Reformation

So by grace alone was contradicted? You know that the contradiction of grace alone is Pelagianism. I don’t think Catholics really taught that.
But again, there seems to be an acceptance of development of doctrine.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Unless you’re a Jehovah’s witness or a Unitarian, you’re almost certainly going to be in a church that accepts the Nicene Creed

Like I said, it is incredibly messy. You’d think the acceptance of the Nicene Creed by Protestants would put the point of serious corruption at least later than that, but it isn’t so easy.

First, many Protestants don’t really accept the Nicene Creed openly. Despite growing up Protestant and being schooled predominantly in Protestant schools (or curricula), I didn’t even know if its existence until I joined a Presbyterian church. Now this doesn’t meant that they reject the Nicene Creed’s teachings. It just means that they either don’t know about it or find agreement with it nice but nothing special.

Second, many, if not most, Protestants don’t really know what was taught between the first century and Protestant Reformation, if even at the Protestant Reformation. They may know that some practice they don’t like (e.g. paedobaptism) started at some time and see that as proof of horrible corruption, but they don’t really think on it in terms of the broader doctrinal developments.

Third, many Protestants just don’t care. They know that they disagree with 2nd - 5th century writings, even among some of their favorite theologians like St. Augustine. Basically, they say that these men were fallible, so if they disagree with something these men wrote, they just say, “I follow Scripture, not men.” Of course, the flip side is there too: “I accept the Nicene Creed because it is grounded in Scripture, and I know it is grounded in Scripture because that’s how I interpret Scripture.” (Obviously, a Protestant wouldn’t phrase it like that, but it accurately represents the attitude while still emphasizing how messy things are.)

In the end, it is, again, just really, really messy. The answers are all over the place, and those that exist tend to raise more questions than they answer ranging from “have you considered” type questions to just, “Have you listened to yourself lately?”

 

[dochawk]

Baptists have bishops–they are called pastors (aka elders). They also have deacons–they are called deacons.

I’m aware that they use the terms, but the roles are inconsistent with those Acts, as well as the records from he first couple of centuries.

I could state that I’m a bishop (called “husband”), that my wife is an elder (called “presbyter” in Acts and theEpistles, and translated in English as “priest”), and that my cats are deacons (which serve us), but that doesn’t have anything to do with Acts, either.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Then you can’t complain about by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. If development of doctrine is okay…

Yes and no. I’ve simply stated development of discipline is okay, development of doctrine is different topic.

So by grace alone was contradicted? You know that the contradiction of grace alone is Pelagianism. I don’t think Catholics really taught that.
But again, there seems to be an acceptance of development of doctrine.

Well, I said “most” Solas. I simply believe what Catholic Church teaches about Solas was believed in Early Church. Saints and their burial sites were clearly held in high esteem. Denying necessity of ordained priesthood for sacraments (excluding baptism and marriage) was also not a practice in Early Church. Justification by faith was viewed as faith supporting works and so on, practically Catholic doctrine concerning this Sola. Bible alone was also not a practice, for practical reasons, because at first Bible was not complete, later on it was not yet clear which books belong and which do not. If Bible alone was largely held to be norm, then I think Early Church would definitely set up list of canonical books much sooner.

There’s the problem with Protestant. Why would you think I believe in iconoclasm.

I was talking about practices of some Protestants. As you said, there’s the problem with generalizing Protestantism- I just used one of practices common among some Protestant denominations. Did not mean to suggest every Protestant believes in it.

 

[JonNC]

Yes and no. I’ve simply stated development of discipline is okay, development of doctrine is different topic.

On this I would agree, but universal jurisdiction is a development of doctrine, not discipline.

Well, I said “most” Solas. I simply believe what Catholic Church teaches about Solas was believed in Early Church. Saints and their burial sites were clearly held in high esteem. Denying necessity of ordained priesthood for sacraments (excluding baptism and marriage) was also not a practice in Early Church. Justification by faith was viewed as faith supporting works and so on, practically Catholic doctrine concerning this Sola. Bible alone was also not a practice, for practical reasons, because at first Bible was not complete, later on it was not yet clear which books belong and which do not. If Bible alone was largely held to be norm, then I think Early Church would definitely set up list of canonical books much sooner.

You have to be precise about whom you are speaking. There are a number of things here I would agree with.
As for sola scriptura, as I said earlier, it was in part a development in response to what was viewed as abuses by the Papacy.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

On this I would agree, but universal jurisdiction is a development of doctrine, not discipline.

Rome was held in high esteem, as Church that presides over others in love. Jurisdiction itself was not a practice of Super-Early Church, but became necessity when Apostles joined the Lord. Some Bishops started holding power over others, based on their authority that came from being direct disciples of Apostles. Later on, some prominent Sees started holding jurisdiction over others. Rome was held as authority in whole Church, many Church Fathers write of necessity in agreeing with Rome and talk about incorruptibility of Rome’s faith. Even after Schism of 1054, Georgian monks have asserted Inerrability of Roman Church. When talking about See, people talk about Bishop in union with other clergy. This means Pope had such inerrability and logical consequence of having Pastor guided by Holy Spirit and preserved from certain errors is to let him oversee things, so this gift from Lord to His Church is not wasted. Otherwise, for what reason would Lord grant one particular Church inerrancy or infallibility? I think universal immediate jurisdiction itself is a development of discipline, but infallibility of Papacy and supreme authority of Roman Church is not development of any sort.

 

[JonNC]

Rome was held in high esteem, as Church that presides over others in love. Jurisdiction itself was not a practice of Super-Early Church, but became necessity when Apostles joined the Lord. Some Bishops started holding power over others, based on their authority that came from being direct disciples of Apostles.

No argument.

I think universal immediate jurisdiction itself is a development of discipline, but infallibility of Papacy and supreme authority of Roman Church is not development of any sort.

If universal jurisdiction is a discipline, it can be change. Correct ? Priestly celibacy in the Latin Church is a discipline. It could be changed, and there are sui juris Eastern churches that do not require it.
Further, papal infallibility is effectively dependent upon universal jurisdiction. How can either be discipline.
And both are development of doctrine.

 

[DeSales111]

My point remains, there was no formal introduction of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, nor was there any refuting it as in the Church acting as a whole, with authority, the way the Church did with the Canon of Scripture and defining the Holy Trinity. The Bishop’s never debated if the Bread & Wine became the actual Body & Blood of Christ. The Church may have defined the action after the Reformation, as Transubstantiation, but the Church never ever thought of the Holy Eucharist as just a symbol. The Church did not have a need to do so before the Reformation, it has always been unanimously understood and believed from the beginning, and after many became sick and some died for eating the Body & Blood of Christ unworthy, you can darn well bet that cemented the belief. Symbols do not carry such consequences as making one sick, terminally ill, or put one in danger of damnation of their soul.

If you take what Christ said, what the Apostles passed on, and what the Church has always practiced, it is a belief that is as solid as rock. But hey, if anyone is nitpicking, picking up little pebbles from a mountain of stone, then ANY belief can be made into a belief of conveinance. That is why there is thousands of Protestant Faith’s.

When I see ten Churches with ten differing doctrines and ten different worship services, and all on the same city block, that’s no reflection of the early Church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If universal jurisdiction is a discipline, it can be change. Correct ? Priestly celibacy in the Latin Church is a discipline. It could be changed, and there are sui juris Eastern churches that do not require it.
Further, papal infallibility is effectively dependent upon universal jurisdiction. How can either be discipline.
And both are development of doctrine.

Main point is that exercise of universal jurisdiction has changed and therefore Church centralization resulting from it is a discipline. How Rome exercised primacy within Early Church was discipline, fact they could do it anyhow is doctrine. Sorry for my confusion.

Universal Jurisdiction itself is implication of doctrine. Therefore it can not be changed because it would require changing doctrine. Universal Jurisdiction stems from inerrancy of Rome, as logical consequence. Infallible have authority over fallible. Bible has authority over men, Church has authority over men, God has authority over men.

So, let me correct myself. Papal Infallibility and inerrancy of Rome is doctrine, and Universal Jurisdiction is practice that stems from it- tt is therefore not a discipline, yet not something Early Church has known sense we do now because of practical reasons.

 

[lanman87]

The Church did not have a need to do so before the Reformation, it has always been unanimously understood and believed from the beginning,

The Historical record doesn’t support that argument. I’ve given one example of many from the Ante-Nicene fathers who give evidence of a spiritual/symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. Absence of of controversy doesn’t mean that there weren’t different beliefs on the “Way Christ in in the Eucharist” since the beginning. It just means the differences weren’t considered a reason to break fellowship with one another.

I will concede the the literal view (though not explained as Transubstantiation) was understood from the beginning. However, It was not unanimous as several of the church fathers held the view that is more closely related to the Spiritual/Symbolic view.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I will concede the the literal view (though not explained as Transubstantiation) was understood from the beginning. However, It was not unanimous as several of the church fathers held the view that is more closely related to the Spiritual/Symbolic view.

Now, correct view would have to be held from beginning. Is there any other view that was understood from beginning? Fact Christians were not unanimous does not mean much though, they were not unanimous on many issues before they were dogmatized.