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

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Sure, but even here is no implication of supremacy. The issue is not the primacy of the See of Rome.

That is your opinion stemming from your interpretation, one I can not disprove nor can you prove it without actual authority on this Earth, that’s why Magisterium role of Pope is that important.

And that authority would have meaning we’re the Great Schism resolved.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

And that authority would have meaning we’re the Great Schism resolved.

If you defy that authority, you schism yourself. Pope can’t please everyone- Church did not please miaphysites or monophysites with Chalcedon (and btw, Miaphysite Christology does not contradict Scripture at all), neither did Church ever hold back just to not lose popularity. Were the Great Schism resolved, other branches could leave and another Great Schism could come- would that nullify Papal Authority? In any case, Church is and stays under Pope, Papal Authority does not disappear just because some people are not fine with doctrine.

Schism does not nullify authority of Church, I’m sure you’d agree that if Church were unified and couple of people left it, it would not mean Church is now unable to proclaim any Ecumenical Councils nor infallible statements. Numbers do not matter at this point. What is point of Papal Authority if Pope loses it whenever someone disagrees with him?

 

[JonNC]

If you defy that authority, you schism yourself. Pope can’t please everyone- Church did not please miaphysites or monophysites with Chalcedon (and btw, Miaphysite Christology does not contradict Scripture at all), neither did Church ever hold back just to not lose popularity.

The pope is equally in Schism as the other patriarchates.

Were the Great Schism resolved, other branches could leave and another Great Schism could come- would that nullify Papal Authority? In any case, Church is and stays under Pope, Papal Authority does not disappear just because some people are not fine with doctrine.

The pope’s authority (it remains in dispute what that is) is diminished by the fact that there is Schism.

Schism does not nullify authority of Church, I’m sure you’d agree that if Church were unified and couple of people left it, it would not mean Church is now unable to proclaim any Ecumenical Councils nor infallible statements. Numbers do not matter at this point. What is point of Papal Authority if Pope loses it whenever someone disagrees with him?

Nullified? No. Diminished? Yes, because Church authority is not in the hands of one bishop.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The pope is equally in Schism as the other patriarchates.

At schism from Church of Christ? Who is not, then? If everyone is, what is even Church of Christ? His Bride, His Body, what does that mean? Is it empty?

The pope’s authority (it remains in dispute what that is) is diminished by the fact that there is Schism.

How does that work? If one guy decided to leave Church during Peter, would Peter’s authority drop? If 10 did, would Peter lose his authority? Heck, did Jesus lose His authority, when people left Him? Did just Holy Spirit decide that Pope is not worthy guiding as well as before just because some heretics left Church?

Church authority is not in the hands of one bishop.

I agree with this completely.

 

[JonNC]

At schism from Church of Christ? Who is not, then? If everyone is, what is even Church of Christ? His Bride, His Body, what does that mean? Is it empty?

What it means is that Christ’s Church is not found only and exclusively in communion with the pope.

How does that work? If one guy decided to leave Church during Peter, would Peter’s authority drop? If 10 did, would Peter lose his authority?

There are those who contend that it is The Bishop of Rome who left Christ’s Church. Peter is not found only in Rome.

We will continue to circle round on this. Here is the point. You come from the presumption that Christ’s Church is only found in communion with the pope. I see no scriptural or Tradition in the early Church that affirms this. You repeatedly saying so doesn’t change that.

I assume we will disagree on that point. I suggest a return to the thread topic.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What it means is that Christ’s Church is not found only and exclusively in communion with the pope.

Where is Christ’s Church exclusively and only found then? Nicene Creed professes faith in “One” Church.

There are those who contend that it is The Bishop of Rome who left Christ’s Church. Peter is not found only in Rome.

Yes, there are, but their position is much more plausible than position that every Christian is fully part of the Church… not that it can’t be refuted, but that’s not part of our conversation.

I see no scriptural or Tradition in the early Church that affirms this. You repeatedly saying so doesn’t change that.

There are numerous quotes of Early Church Fathers about Peter’s See being in Rome, I am pretty sure you know about them. Rome was point of unity, while you may deny Universal Jurisdiction or Infallibility being explicitly stated, you can not deny this.

I suggest a return to the thread topic.

If you want to, that is fine but I genuinely enjoy this conversation. You might be first Protestant I met that holds such view, and while it is much more appealing to me than “Pope is heretic he left the Church” stuff, I still don’t agree with it but I want to understand it and reasons you hold it, as well as I want to understand why do you not hold Catholic view if those views are just steps apart.

 

[JonNC]

If you want to, that is fine but I genuinely enjoy this conversation. You might be first Protestant I met that holds such view, and while it is much more appealing to me than “Pope is heretic he left the Church” stuff, I still don’t agree with it.

I have way too much respect for the Church to hold such a view regarding the pope.

 

[William_Scott]

We will continue to circle round on this. Here is the point. You come from the presumption that Christ’s Church is only found in communion with the pope. I see no scriptural or Tradition in the early Church that affirms this. You repeatedly saying so doesn’t change that.

Agreed JonNC. The irony is that for all the claims of uniformity of doctrine and practice that is allegedly found only in formal submission to/communion with the Pope, there is far more continuity in doctrine and practice among Bible-believing Non-Roman Catholics and even between Bible-believing Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics than there is between the conservative and the liberal factions in the Roman Catholic Church (and this is ignoring all the other differences in belief and practice found even among those Roman Catholics that fall on the conservative end of the spectrum).

In fact, as a Bible-believing Protestant who regularly visits, participates and worships with Bible-believing non-Roman Catholics from across the spectrum (from nose bleed high Church to snake belly low Church, from charismatic to non-charismatic, from peado to credo-baptism, from Arminian to Augustinian/Calvinist, etc.) and often hangs out with various stripes of conservative Roman Catholics, I find the comparative lack of conformity in doctrine and practice among Roman Catholics breathtaking. [As noted in a previous thread, if you are a typical conservative RC you likely share far more in common on fundamental matters of life and doctrine with the Bible-believing non-denominational church down the street than you do with your fellow pew-mate or the priest preaching the homily].

Again, I have seen over and over again that there is an amazing unity around one Lord, one faith, and one baptism for those who truly place their trust in the Triune God and His holy Word, no matter what particular Church they are worshiping Christ in. This unity binds believers together with bonds far stronger than an outward/formal communion with the Pope (who seems to often have far more negative to say to the large, devout RCC family, etc. than he does to the reprobate Bishops, liberal RCC politicians, etc.).

Further, as to Newman’s oft-quoted “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”–I would say the opposite is the case for me. I love the study of Church history, and many of the richest gems that I’ve gathered come from the writings of pre-reformation theologians.

For all that (and despite my serious disagreement with my RCC brethren on certain issues), I love my Roman Catholic brethren–and their official stand on such issues as artificial birth control, male only ordination, sanctity of life, etc. is to be highly praised.

I’ll probably be out for the foreseeable future. God Bless.

 

[EZweber]

As noted in a previous thread, if you are a typical conservative RC you likely share far more in common on fundamental matters of life and doctrine with the Bible-believing non-denominational church down the street than you do with your fellow pew-mate or the priest preaching the homily

That is because many, even most “Catholics” do not obey the Church or believe what it teaches.

 

[William_Scott]

As noted in a previous thread, if you are a typical conservative RC you likely share far more in common on fundamental matters of life and doctrine with the Bible-believing non-denominational church down the street than you do with your fellow pew-mate or the priest preaching the homily

Likewise, all lack of unity among Trinitarian Bible-believing Protestants (which I would argue is far less than the fundamental lack of unity among Roman Catholics) comes from the unwillingness of most of us (myself included) to live by every Word that proceeds out of the Mouth of God.

 

[William_Scott]

p.s. My prior post is not intended to be dismissive of the great importance, for instance, of Tradition–I value it highly, and I see innovative departures from Scripture and Tradition by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc. as a grave matter.

A good example of such innovation is the jettisoning by many Christians of Scripture and 1800 years of Tradition in favor of the unscientific mythologies of our day (e.g. the miracle of microbe to man evolution). Thankfully, many of my Non-Roman Catholic brethren, and even a number of my RC brethren share my disdain for the origin myths/origin dogmas of secular humanism. (But this is a discussion for another day, and another thread).

Well, I need to get back to serving the Lord in more productive ways. Have a great week everyone.

 

[ReadTheBible]

I have read your reasons but they don’t add up to making me think or believe Peter was given authority over the church.

Your belief is that Jesus named Peter the Vicar of Christ in Matthew 16:18. Yet 5 verses later Jesus called Peter Satan. That has to be the quickest fall in the history of mankind

Paul publicly rebuked Peter in Galations 2:11-14. Shouldn’t Paul know his place to the new Pope? Evidently not

Peter didn’t identify himself as the Pope. 1 Peter 5:1. What did Peter call his self? An elder. That doesn’t seem like he’s taking the reigns of this Pope title very seriously. He doesn’t even call himself “The” elder. He’s one of many.

Peter called Jesus the rock in 1 Peter 2:6-7

Paul thought Jesus was the cornerstone, not Peter. Ephesians 2:19- 21

Peter (Cephas) was called a pillar of church along with James and John by Paul. Galations 2:9 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Paul certainly isn’t making any distinctions about Peter among his fellow disciples.

Paul affirms Jesus again as the cornerstone, not Peter or any other man. I Cor. 3:10- 11

In Acts 8 we read the story of Peter and John laying hands on the people of Samaria. Simon saw this and offered money to be able to have this gift from God. What did Peter say to this? “But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”

That is precisely what indulgences is in the world of Catholicism. Who offers indulgences? The pope does in his folly thinking that money can buy the gifts of God. The pope is no different than Simon. Their hearts are the same.

Jesus preached against the system of man that the Pharisees ascribed to. Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Catholicism tells their members to pray Hail Marys as penance. The prayer is vain repetition and not even to God. As if that isn’t enough the prayer calls Mary holy. This is a travesty. Only God himself is holy.

Romans 3:10 proclaims how many to have been righteous including Mary? None.

Catholicism is a man made system setting up a man in a position, who by their very dogma, claims to be God himself which we know scripture defines as blasphemy.

 

[steve-b]

JonNC:

Later to the twelve.

There was binding and loosing, but I do not recall keys being mentioned. Article speculates about that, but does not prove it at all.

Exactly

The Orthodox invented and thus use the 1st among equals argument because THEY TOO had an authority issue, that Jesus established with Peter. The same old argument that SATAN instigated at of all places the Last Supper, when Satan got the apostles in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM. Jesus answered their argument. Peter is the greatest among THEM. And as fate would have it, the argument continues with all those who left the Catholic Church. EVERYONE who continues this argument against the universal jurisdiction of Peter, are being sifted by, as Jesus said, Satan… Then came Protestantism

 

[steve-b]

I have read your reasons but they don’t add up to making me think or believe Peter was given authority over the church.

None of the links were opened. How is it you say you read my reasons?

ReadTheBible:

Your belief is that Jesus named Peter the Vicar of Christ in Matthew 16:18. Yet 5 verses later Jesus called Peter Satan. That has to be the quickest fall in the history of mankind

Who was also THERE witnessing everything Jesus said to Peter? SATAN
Satan has been following them continuously during Our Lord’s public life.

Now, show me where anything changed between Jesus and Peter?

ReadTheBible:

Paul publicly rebuked Peter in Galations 2:11-14. Shouldn’t Paul know his place to the new Pope? Evidently not

Excerpt for space. Links give the who context

St Jerome responded to this charge of Paul rebuking Peter by observing that,
Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him. Now look at what Paul did
In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
Catch that? Paul rebukes Peter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it.

[snip for space]

… “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip] I tried to highlight and compress ( albeit a poor job on my part) what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly starting with ch’s 3…. of his letter. Here is

Jerome’s full letter. Please read it. Forget my inept job at trying to summarize. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

AND

. http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html expanded explanation

The rest of your post had all the familiar topics listed. I’ll hit those topics on separate posts

 

[Hodos]

so did Arius, Nestorians, and many other heretics… where do we draw the line? Which doctrinal errors are ok and which are not? Is Trinity enough?

Well we draw the line where doctrine violates the clear word of scripture. I understand that you have a different standard though.

How do we know it is or is not true? Problem is humans are fallible, and our judgment is not the correct one all the time.

We agree, humans are fallible, and the Roman Catholic has the same issue without a meaningful answer other than to suggest pre-suppositionally that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible.

Rome does, but Rome has claim of Petrine succession, Luther has no such thing.

Right, and no where does the Bible even hint that Petrine succession means that the office is infallible. Refer back to Galatians where Paul rebukes Peter.

Neither was Trinity, yet we all believe in it.

Your statement is in error. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t “make up” the doctrine of the Trinity. They described what could be observed in scripture. Are you seriously arguing that that scripture does not teach that there is one God, that this God has manifested himself as the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit? That each of the persons of the Trinity are eternal? You are falling into the trap most non-Trinitarians claim which is that just because the theological descriptive word Trinity is not located in the Bible, that the teaching itself is not revealed in scripture.

If it is in your opinion contradicted by Scripture though. What if you misunderstand Scripture?

Then I am open to correction if you can demonstrate through sound exegesis that my opinion is contradicted by scripture. Certainly my understanding of doctrine has grown over time as I have become more familiar with the scriptures. I am definitely more adept at describing doctrine than I was maybe 15 years ago.

 

[ReadTheBible]

So everyone who doesn’t worship the Pope as their leader and do what he says can’t be saved?

Is this what Catholicism teaches you because again this isn’t what scripture says.

In Acts 16 Paul and Silas were in prison, the keeper of the prison asked what he must do to be saved. What are Paul’s exact words? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” - that is all. They didn’t tell the man to do 500,000 hail marys for his past sins. They didn’t tell the man to donate money to the church. They didn’t say do everything the Pope Peter says to.

Paul said in Romans 10 - “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Here’s another opportunity for Paul to elaborate on what it takes to be saved. There’s no mention of Peter or following a litany of man made rules.

Jesus said in Matthew, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Isn’t it our primary obligation then once saved to do the will of the heavenly Father? Who is it that leads us to truth concerning God’s will? It’s the Holy Spirit as Jesus said.

Some of the most poignant and beautiful words Jesus said are in Matthew 11.

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light

Jesus condemns the system of works put in place by the Pharisees. History tells us that the Pharisees had come up with over 600 regulations regarding what constituted working on the Sabbath. The burden put on men by the Pharisees and man’s systems are heavy and tedious. Jesus tells all there is no amount of law-keeping that can bridge the sinfulness of man to God’s Holiness. It can’t be accomplished. Jesus encourages those who are heavy laden to take His yoke upon them and in doing so they will find rest for their souls.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Well we draw the line where doctrine violates the clear word of scripture. I understand that you have a different standard though.

Stop saying that RCs think it’s okay for doctrine to violate Scripture. It’s a false claim. Just because you disagree with their interpretation of Scripture doesn’t mean that they think that they’re free to run roughshod over it.

 

[GKMotley]

So everyone who doesn’t worship the Pope as their leader and do what he says can’t be saved?

Worse statement in the thread.

 

[HopkinsReb]

ReadTheBible:

So everyone who doesn’t worship the Pope as their leader and do what he says can’t be saved?

Worse statement in the thread.

Which is a really, really, impressive feat in a thread full of people on all sides saying uncharitable things about each other.

 

[TULIPed]

So everyone who doesn’t worship the Pope as their leader and do what he says can’t be saved?

Dude. Seriously? How can you possibly be taken seriously when you write crap like this? This is uncharitable at best and downright disrespectful at worst.