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

[GKMotley]

You are correct. I am most serious about the state of (non) knowledge, over the years, I have found with respect to WAY too many folks. No history, no theology, no nuthin’.

I’ve had to straighten out too many of them, over the years. Glad not to do it again.

 

[steve-b]

Augustine’s view on predstination changed in his later years. He admits this himself. This is one example. The entire work is worth reading.

On the Predestination of the Saints

Book 1

1. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate….I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe in Him — to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, ‘A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.’

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm

Book 2

1. …It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, who both comes to the help of such infants as He will, although…since He chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world as those to whom He intended to give His grace freely — that is, with no merits of theirs, either of faith or of works, preceding; and does not come to the help of those who are more mature, although He foresaw that they would believe His miracles if they should be done among them, because He wills not to come to their help, since in His predestination He, secretly indeed, but yet righteously, has otherwise determined concerning them. For there is no unrighteousness with God; but His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways are past finding out; all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth. Therefore the mercy is past finding out by which He has mercy on whom He will, no merits of his own preceding; and the truth is unsearchable by which He hardens whom He will, even although his merits may have preceded, but merits for the most part common to him with the man on whom He has mercy.
2. Will any man dare to say that God did not foreknow those to whom He would give to believe, or whom He would give to His Son, that of them He should lose none? And certainly, if He foreknew these things, He as certainly foreknew His own kindnesses, wherewith He condescends to deliver us. This is the predestination of the saints — nothing else; to wit, the foreknowledge and the preparation of God’s kindnesses, [snip for space]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15122.htm

as has been said earlier Augustine didn’t teach double predestination

 

[JonNC]

OK, are you saying, you speak authoritatively for all 10’s of thousands of different independent and even competing sects of Protestants for what they believe?

Resorting to the “tens of thousands “ is such a thin argument, but it makes my point.
First, you quote a Catholic source to describe a teaching that is not Catholic, sort of like referring to @ReadTheBible to describe a teaching that is Catholic.
Second, that same Catholic source you referenced refers to Protestant in the singular, and you defend it by calling out the “tens of thousands”.

Third, it is precisely because Protestant is not and never has been a single communion that the article you site is false, but since you regularly credit/blame Luther for all teachings held by said “tens of thousands” communions (even though virtually none are variants from Lutheranism) let’s credit Luther with sola scriptura. Luther did not teach sola scriptura as a rejection of Tradition

 

[MarysLurker]

Resorting to the “tens of thousands “

CA just posted an article about this today: The Many Flavors of Protestantism | Catholic Answers

Well, as concerns the gap, there is a point that the X number of Protestant denominations have basically nothing in common. Usually belief in the Trinity is used as the common denominator for qualifying as Christian and therefore as Protestant, but there is no real agreement even about the Trinity. For example, all Protestants acknowledge that the Holy Spirit exists but on whether or not He is even active in the world today, and to what extent, there is no agreement. There are cessationationsts on one end of the spectrum and Pentecostals on the other end and everyone in between.

And then there’s Jesus Christ. Everyone agrees He is God but no one agrees on exactly what that means. I once heard someone from Catholic Answers say, “There are a lot of churches that say, we have no creed but Christ. Well, which Christ? The Nestorian Christ? The Miaphisite Christ? The Cathar Christ?” And on and on. There were a LOT of Christological controversies in the first few centuries that are basically just ignored. Consider this: if Jesus is God, then is His Mother the Mother of God? A lot of them revive the old Nestorian heresy and say no just so they can avoid talking about Mary. Well, then, who died for your sins? God? A man? That is kind of important if you’re walking around telling everyone they’re forgiven by believing in… which Christ again?

A Methodist pastor once told me that this is the big danger with the independent churches with no historical ties. He said, “they have to go through all the old heresies again.”

 

[Isearch]

The fact that the doctrine of predestination prior to future actions could be traced back to St. Augustine shows that this doctrine is not necessarily a novelty by the time of the Council of Trent. And novelty is a common aspect of heresies.

 

[Isearch]

Trent did not condemn the doctrine of Predestination prior to future actions.

 

[JonNC]

Much of this has elements of truth. When Pope Benedict visited Erfurt and spoke and met with the Lutherans there, he hinted at this.

Faced with a new form of Christianity, which is spreading with overpowering missionary dynamism, sometimes in frightening ways, the mainstream Christian denominations often seem at a loss. This is a form of Christianity with little institutional depth, little rationality and even less dogmatic content, and with little stability. This worldwide phenomenon – that bishops from all over the world are constantly telling me about – poses a question to us all: what is this new form of Christianity saying to us, for better and for worse? In any event, it raises afresh the question about what has enduring validity and what can or must be changed – the question of our fundamental faith choice.

Prior to this he spoke of keeping in mind all that unites us, all that we agree on. It is a powerful read.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...i_spe_20110923_evangelical-church-erfurt.html

Now, as for the day, “we have no creed but Christ”, this:

 

[MarysLurker]

Prior to this he spoke of keeping in mind all the unites us,

Indeed, as (I think) you come from a historical Protestant church that accepts the Nicene Creed. That is why you can say there is so much that unites us. There’s a big difference between a Protestant Nicene church and, say, a megachurch founded less than 10 years ago that is more interested in the power of positive thinking (or Catholic bashing) than proper Christology.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Prior to this he spoke of keeping in mind all the unites us,

Indeed, as (I think) you come from a historical Protestant church that accepts the Nicene Creed. That is why you can say there is so much that unites us. There’s a big difference between a Protestant Nicene church and, say, a megachurch founded less than 10 years ago that is more interested in the power of positive thinking (or Catholic bashing) than proper Christology.

Exactly. And that’s why I constantly say that when speaking of doctrine and practice, the use of the term Protestant is folly.

 

[MarysLurker]

Exactly. And that’s why I constantly say that when speaking of doctrine and practice, the use of the term Protestant is folly.

Well, the term means (1) a Christian (hence Trinitarian) (2) who protests against the Pope AND the Orthodox patriarchates. The term Protestant thus means something and can’t be separated from that essential meaning. But per your point it should be further separated into historical and non-historical Protestantism. However, all Protestants have a doctrinal gap between them and Biblical times because they broke off for some ostensible/purported theological dispute.

 

[JonNC]

Well, the term means (1) a Christian (hence Trinitarian) (2) who protests against the Pope AND the Orthodox patriarchates. The term Protestant thus means something and can’t be separated from that essential meaning.

For number 1, true.
For number 2, no, it doesn’t. The original formal protest, from which the term sprang, was against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. Similarly, Lutherans and Catholics joined together to protest the HHS mandate.

Further, the vast majority of Protestants are not protesting against the Catholic Church. The vast majority of Protestants in the pews couldn’t care less.
They are typically members of the church they grew up in, or that their spouse was a member of, or that’s convenient to attend.
The Catholic church down the street is where a friend or neighbor attends.

As for Orthodoxy, most Protestants know little about them.

However, all Protestants have a doctrinal gap between them and Biblical times because they broke off for some ostensible/purported theological dispute.

And, of course, that’s a matter of opinion.

 

[MarysLurker]

The original formal protest, from which the term sprang, was against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529.

Yes, but then Luther broke from the authority of his Catholic bishop, and tried to join with the Orthodox, but they told him he was a heretic and refused him. Likewise with Zwingli, Henry, Calvin, etc. (though some of them didn’t try rapprochement with the Orthodox.)

Today as from the beginning, there are bishops who occupy sees that represent the Catholic or Orthodox jurisdiction over X area and/or Y people, all of which have apostolic succession going back to Jesus and the Apostles. If you refuse to belong to any of them, you’re in protest, hence a Protestant and you have created a gap between you and the early Church.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but then Luther broke from the authority of his Catholic bishop, and tried to join with the Orthodox, but they told him he was a heretic and refused him. Likewise with Zwingli, Henry, Calvin, etc. (though some of them didn’t try rapprochement with the Orthodox.)

Your timeline is wrong. Luther’s excommunication happened in January 1521. The formal protest happened in 1529.
Secondly, contact between Luther and the Orthodox was probably at best indirect. A timeline for this is in the link.

Early Lutherans and the Greek Church – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Today as from the beginning, there are bishops who occupy sees that represent the Catholic or Orthodox jurisdiction over X area and/or Y people, all of which have apostolic succession going back to Jesus and the Apostles. If you refuse to belong to any of them, you’re in protest, hence a Protestant and you have created a gap between you and the early Church.

So, you’re in protest of Orthodoxy because you refuse to be in communion with them.
That’s not the meaning of protest.

 

[TULIPed]

Indeed, as (I think) you come from a historical Protestant church that accepts the Nicene Creed.

As do I (Presbyterian). Although I’m sad to say we rarely recite it corporately.

 

[MarysLurker]

you’re in protest of Orthodoxy

Yes. To qualify as Protestant you have to protest both apostolic communions (Catholic and Orthodox). Now just because I’m Catholic and therefore technically in protest of the Great Schism doesn’t mean I don’t have 99% in common with them or X high percentage with you. But that doesn’t make me a Protestant or you not a Protestant.

 

[MarysLurker]

As do I (Presbyterian). Although I’m sad to say we rarely recite it corporately.

That’s sad. IMHO if we focused more on the Creed we would understand each other better.

 

[steve-b]

Trent did not condemn the doctrine of Predestination prior to future actions.

Predestination is scriptural. Double predestination as Calvin taught is NOT scriptural. We always have free will to change our direction right up to the moment of our death.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

you’re in protest of Orthodoxy

Yes. To qualify as Protestant you have to protest both apostolic communions (Catholic and Orthodox). Now just because I’m Catholic and therefore technically in protest of the Great Schism doesn’t mean I don’t have 99% in common with them or X high percentage with you. But that doesn’t make me a Protestant or you not a Protestant.

You can make up any definition for Protestant that you are happy with, but it doesn’t make it the actual definition.
You can also postulate that Catholics and Orthodox agree 99%, but even if it is true, which it isn’t , that last 1% is cause of a 1000 year schism.

 

[MarysLurker]

You can make up any definition for Protestant that you are happy with, but it doesn’t make it the actual definition.

It’s not my definition. It’s Merriam Webster’s.

Protestant​

noun

prot·es·tant | \ ˈprä-tə-stənt , sense 2 is also prə-ˈte- \

a : any of a group of German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement

b : a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

2 : one who makes or enters a protest

 

[JonNC]

prot·es·tant | \ ˈprä-tə-stənt , sense 2 is also prə-ˈte- \

a : any of a group of German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement

This is the source of the term.

b : a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth
broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

That’s all fine to a point. But here there is no mention of a protest against anyone. The name comes from “a”.

2 : one who makes or enters a protest

No mention here of a protest against the Catholic Church, and certainly not against Eastern Orthodoxy