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

[HopkinsReb]

I am literally laughing out loud right now. Well done folks. That’s how charitable discourse works.

Conspiracy theory: RTB is secretly your burner account you use to say outrageous things to shift the board’s Overton window.

 

[TULIPed]

Now I’m really LOL.

 

[Hodos]

Lol fair enough. You can read my previous posts where I think I drew that distinction already.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Lol fair enough. You can read my previous posts where I think I drew that distinction already.

It would not be the first time, nor will it be the last, that I misunderstand someone’s point…

 

[Hodos]

That’s why I felt the need to clarify. I know you mean well.

 

[GKMotley]

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

No Roman Catholic worships any created entity. They follow the Pope, when he directly speaks on matters of doctrine on faith and morals, ex cathedra. They follow the teachings of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, consistent with the applicable level of theological certainty on each teaching.

 

[TULIPed]

No Roman Catholic worships any created entity.

I know more than a few that get awfully close on Notre Dame football…

 

[GKMotley]

Doubtless examples of poor catechesis. I’ve heard a lot about that subject.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Well we draw the line where doctrine violates the clear word of scripture.

But according to whom? It is all based on your opinion that it violates clear word of Scripture. Jews would say denying circumcision denies God’s word too.

Roman Catholic Church is infallible

Infallibility of Church is not same as infallibility of every believer in it. Church is considered infallible in most denominations I encountered, but might be different in yours I guess.

where does the Bible even hint that Petrine succession means that the office is infallible

When Lord tells Peter that He is with him and will preserve him from error. Paul-Peter argument is clearly answered above, but long story short Paul rebuked Peter based on his actions not doctrine nor not being infallible.

The Roman Catholic Church didn’t “make up” the doctrine of the Trinity.

Of course Church did not make it up.

They described what could be observed in scripture.

Yes, as with many other things such as Purgatory etc. Simply speaking Scripture implies many things and it does not need approval of every single being that reads Bible.

Then I am open to correction if you can demonstrate through sound exegesis that my opinion is contradicted by scripture.

Right… and if you do not agree with me, only Ecumenical Council accepted by every Christian on this Earth can resolve this.

I am not arguing against Trinity, I am merely showing that some beliefs you hold are not explicitly in the Bible yet Church defined them using Her infallibility- and She has done so with many other doctrines, namely Roman Catholic doctrines. My point is that without infallibility you are your own Pope with no regards to any authority over you except your opinions.

 

[steve-b]

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

What hit pieces are you pulling from?

ReadTheBible:

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 in the Lord Jesus Christ" - that is all. They didn’t tell the man to do 500,000 hail marys [snip]

Good grief.

Re: faith

Faith as in Believe in is a ,HUGE word. It’s NOT just something you “say”

"Believe in" = doing everything Jesus taught. One who doesn’t do what He taught yet says they believe, have a said faith, which scripture says is a dead faith . A dead faith won’t save

ReadTheBible:

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.”

How can you say Jesus is Lord,

when

1. Scripture condemns division and those who do it,. You a Protestant, are divided from His Church and even fight against His Church? He says everyone is to be IN His Church.HERE as in there is to be ZERO division from His Church. NO schism, NO Heresy, NO mindless divisive sects etc etc.
2. Paul warns and shows the consequences for all who divide / dissent διχοστασίαι,from Our Lord’s Church, THEY WON’T INHERIT HEAVEN Open the links to see the full meaning. Is this teaching a suggestion or a command?

Also

Jesus makes big qualifying statements that aren’t suggestions but commands.

Example

If you love me you will keep my commands suggestion or command?

AND

"Truly Truly I say to you, Unless you… suggestion or command?

Jesus said in that link, without receiving (The Eucharist), one has no life in them. As in no sanctifying grace. He says I don’t abide in that person nor do they abide in ME. …,. WOW!!!

To have a valid Eucharist one needs valid holy orders. Neither is available in Protestantism.

Comments?

 

[steve-b]

HopkinsReb:

No. They believe that non-Catholic Christians are their brothers and sisters in Christ who are, for various reasons and with fault on both sides, separated from the Church.

At the risk of totally derailing the thread, I will say that I, as an Orthodox Christian, have been told on this forum by Catholics that I, and my fellow Orthodox, are guilty of the mortal sin of schism and are therefore condemned to hell. No ifs, ands, or buts.

It is true that “Orthodoxy” in it’s forms, is in schism from the Catholic Church. Eastern Schism | Catholic Answers

(60%+ of Orthodoxy) Russians break from Constantinople / Istanbul. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

The big question is,

Is schism from the Catholic Church a little sin or a whopper of a sin?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

ReadTheBible:

We are not going to agree and settle the differences between Rome and Protestantism. I’m merely telling you what I believe.

Good, because I certainly don’t want you thinking you speak for all communions that are loosely classified as ”Protestant “

From the time Jesus asks his apostles the question who do they think he is, the entire context is regarding faith.

No where in that statement do I find universal jurisdiction.

Jon,

When Jesus said to Peter, [Alone] in front of all the apostles, after His resurrection and before His ascension back to heaven,

Peter, the one Jesus gives the keys to His kingdom to

Jesus says to Peter, " ποίμαινε my sheep"

as in ποίμαινε = shepherd, tend, rule, govern my sheep (present imperative active 2nd person singular)

Does Jesus restrict which sheep He means for Peter to shepherd, tend, rule, govern? NO

Do the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gives Peter alone, have jurisdiction restrictions (as in Peter can only shepherd, tend, rule, govern, ) only certain sheep and not the entire flock of Our Lord’s? NO

If you find such restrictions of the flock Peter is NOT in charge of, , please post them

Peter has universal jurisdiction

Christ gives the keys first to Peter.
Later to the twelve.
The keys are for the whole Church, not one man, not one Bishop, not one See.

This link explains it quite well.
June | 2018 | Saint Anne Orthodox Christian Church

The Orthodox have authority issues dating back to their beginning. And as it turns out today, 60%+ of Orthodoxy (the Russians) are now in schism from the rest of Orthodoxy. If you want the links just say so.

That said, how can they explain “quite well” as you say, the issue of Peter, the keys, and authority?

Jon,

Show me where Jesus restricts authority from Peter. Show me where he has no universal jurisdiction.

 

[Hodos]

But according to whom? It is all based on your opinion that it violates clear word of Scripture. Jews would say denying circumcision denies God’s word too.

Is there are reason you keep appealing to non-Christian groups who reject Christ and the New Testament revelation as your examples?

When Lord tells Peter that He is with him and will preserve him from error.

Quote please. I am unaware of any place that Christ says he will preserve Peter from error.

I am not arguing against Trinity, I am merely showing that some beliefs you hold are not explicitly in the Bible yet Church defined them using Her infallibility

Right, and I am challenging you on the assumption that the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching.

 

[ReadTheBible]

We’ve already went over all of that.

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

Jesus plainly tells all his disciples that he is not literally talking about his flesh but it is his words (teaching) that give life. You will not accept that as Catholicism defines for you that Jesus is being literal. I think we can move on.

 

[EZweber]

Spirit does not always mean nonphysical. Also notice that as many of his followers left him over this, he would have been morally obligated to clarify. Instead, he reaffirms his statement with a double Amen, which is not the sort of language you use when speaking allegorically. The word he uses for “eat my flesh” literally means “to gnaw upon one’s flesh.” Also not allegorical language. Another point is that in the cultural context of the time to “drink my blood” in an allegorical sense would have meant “insult and revile me.” Hmm, unless you insult and revile me, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Is there are reason you keep appealing to non-Christian groups who reject Christ and the New Testament revelation as your examples?

Yes, I stated it already- it is to prove my point. I have no idea what beliefs would you considered heterodox so I play this card, because you are bound to consider them heterodox (so do I).

Quote please.

Luke 22:31-32. It is implied, granted- not explicitly stated… well, I mean same way many other doctrines we both share are.

I am challenging you on the assumption that the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching

I agree with you, but at the same time my assumption is that you can read and believe in Bible without needing to believe in Trinity if you misinterpret it- so you can read Bible without needing to believe in Papacy if you misinterpret it, etc. That’s mostly my point- our interpretation and agreements on exegesis do not matter as much as authority Lord established.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

as it turns out today, 60%+ of Orthodoxy (the Russians) are now in schism from the rest of Orthodoxy

I do not mean to disagree with anything else other than this in this post- Orthodoxy have this “dual communion” thing where Church 1 and Church 2 can both be in communion with Church 3 but not with each other. But then again, I heard about scenario where Moscow Patriarch did not commemorate any other Patriarch at Liturgy yet Ukrainian Patriarch did commemorate even Moscow. Orthodox communion right now is very, very complicated, sloppy and I doubt anyone really understands it- they just kinda pretend. Moscow and Constantinople send priests to each other jurisdiction as if there was no one present and it’s a mess of messes- even during Great Schism this did not happen, only during Chalcedonian one.

But as I said, it’s not exactly accurate that Russians are in Schism with everyone else- only with Constantinople.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Many of his disciples left at this point but they didn’t believe from the very beginning. That’s the entire essence of his message. Believe in Jesus’s doctrine and you will have everlasting life. There were those that “believed not”. Those disciples left.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

What did Peter say after this?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life

Again, this is as clearly stated as it can be. Jesus’ words (doctrine) have eternal life. Peter didn’t say "I’m going to follow you till you die master so I can eat your flesh and drink your blood. Peter and the other disciples were made to understand that Jesus was 100% talking about his words, doctrine, teaching and that he was the Messiah.

 

[EZweber]

Many of his disciples left at this point but they didn’t believe from the very beginning. That’s the entire essence of his message. Believe in Jesus’s doctrine and you will have everlasting life. There were those that “believed not”. Those disciples left.

Exept directly after it they said “This is a hard teaching, who can understand it?” and left. The context makes it obvious that they are referring to what Christ just said. And my other points are independent of this.

 

[Hodos]

Luke 22:31-32. It is implied, granted- not explicitly stated… well, I mean same way many other doctrines we both share are.

I am not seeing how Jesus telling Peter that he has prayed for Peter’s faith so that once he turns back after having deserted the Lord he can strengthen his brothers translates to Peter and his successors are prevented from error. If this is the best reference for this belief it is pretty weak exegetically.

I agree with you, but at the same time my assumption is that you can read and believe in Bible without needing to believe in Trinity if you misinterpret it- so you can read Bible without needing to believe in Papacy if you misinterpret it, etc. That’s mostly my point- our interpretation and agreements on exegesis do not matter as much as authority Lord established.

I would argue that one’s authority is dependent upon faithful interpretation, not the other way around. This seems to be the dividing line between our viewpoints.