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

[adf417]

adf417:

It is one of the both-and’s of our faith.

How can something be both a symbol of something and literally be the same thing? I can understand how you can be one thing and a symbol of something else. The American Flag stands for freedom but it is not freedom, it is a flag.

If the bread and wine are symbols of Christ then they aren’t the flesh and blood of Christ then they are symbols of Christ Flesh and Blood. If the bread and wine are Christ flesh and blood then they aren’t symbols, they are flesh and blood. You can’t be both at the same time.

I suppose you could say that to Christians they are Flesh and Blood but to non-Christians they are symbols. But the problem with that the vast majority of the church fathers (Other than the apologist) aren’t writing to non-Christians they are writing to Christians and would always use literal language if they both had a literal view.

If you do not believe in the Transubstantiation then you would be correct. If you do believe then after the moment of consecration the elements of bread and wine that no longer are bread and wine but look like bread and wine become symbols of their appearance.

Its not both the body and symbols of the body but rather the body and symbols of bread and wine.

Peace!!!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hahahaha

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’ve attended Lutheran service and they always used actual wine. And you were not communicated unless you were a baptized Christian and first spoke to the pastor – but this was Missouri Synod, not sure what branch your Lutheran Church is a part of.

 

[Wannano]

I’ve attended Lutheran service and they always used actual wine. And you were not communicated unless you were a baptized Christian and first spoke to the pastor – but this was Missouri Synod, not sure what branch your Lutheran Church is a part of.

The Church we attended last Sunday was a part of the Church of the Lutheran Brethren in America.

In their statement about Communion: In the Sacrement of Holy Communion, Christ gives to the communicants His body and blood in, with and under the bread and wine.

 

[steve-b]

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.

Said differently

I would say, it’s NOT gymnastics but heresies many listed HERE that appear over time that caused and established division{s)… And The Church defines heresy as the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; from: Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 2089. So for one to be guilty of heresy, one first must have been baptized…

As we also know, heresies and those who are in them, and keep them going, scripture condemns that activity

It’s interesting, Paul to Bp Titus, teaches Titus to only give divisive αἱρετικὸν people 2 tries to come around. Maybe that’s why Paul never gives a 3rd letter in scripture.

Tit 3:10-11 ( the Greek word comes from the Greek study bible)
10 As for a man who is factious αἱρετικὸν after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Maybe the followup historical question is

How do Protestants explain their existence, 1500 yrs after the fact, given Paul’s instruction to Titus?

 

[Hodos]

How do Protestants explain their existence, 1500 yrs after the fact, given Paul’s instruction to Titus?

Protestants explain it the same way that the existence of orthodoxy is explained by the Catholic Church. In other words, as heterodoxy presents itself, the Church is called to define its doctrine in accordance with what was received from the apostles. So for example, the Christological controversies that existed in the early centuries of the Church were clarified in a series of councils that developed confessional statements of doctrine up through the fifth century. None of these were defining anything new, as we can see from the apostolic documents contained in scripture that the apostles had always taught both the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, the doctrines were just articulated to counter errors in doctrine that had cropped up.

Unfortunately, with the exception of the Pelagian controversy of the late 4th, early 5th Century, there were few compelling reasons in the early Church to make a concerted effort to define the doctrine of justification. This is why you can read Church documents such as some of Justin Martyr’s writings, or Peter Lombard’s writings, and even to an extent Thomas Aquinas’ writings appear scripturally off-base, proposing a works based teaching on justification.

The issue you brought up is that the Church’s answer to heretical teachings has to be based in divine truth. When her answer is not based in divine truth, then we have an issue.

The Protestant Reformation was first and foremost an attempt to address the errors in teaching about the subject of justification and to present the divine truth as proclaimed by the apostles and recorded in their writings. Unfortunately this rift was solidified when the Council of Trent double-down on certain doctrinal errors on the subject of justification.

You are correct in asserting that Paul taught Timothy and Titus not to allow for the presence of people who caused dissension in the Church after they were warned. You are incorrect though in the application that Paul didn’t care about doctrine, particularly when it comes down to the subject of justification. The Letter to the Galatians demonstrates this, and is noteworthy in that it is the only place where Paul comes unglued because some were teaching incorrectly that our righteousness is obtained through means other than faith.

How do we explain our existence after 1500 years given Paul’s instructions to Titus? As Paul tells the Galatians: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” It is because the doctrinal issue that predicated the Reformation was never addressed, that we are not one body.

We do however continue to engage in ecumenical dialogue in the hopes that we will one day be reunited in doctrine.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How do Protestants explain their existence, 1500 yrs after the fact, given Paul’s instruction to Titus?

Protestants explain it the same way that the existence of orthodoxy is explained by the Catholic Church. In other words, as heterodoxy presents itself, the Church is called to define its doctrine in accordance with what was received from the apostles. So for example, the Christological controversies that existed in the early centuries of the Church were clarified in a series of councils that developed confessional statements of doctrine up through the fifth century. None of these were defining anything new, as we can see from the apostolic documents contained in scripture that the apostles had always taught both the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, the doctrines were just articulated to counter errors in doctrine that had cropped up.

[snip for space]

The issue you brought up is that the Church’s answer to heretical teachings has to be based in divine truth. When her answer is not based in divine truth, then we have an issue.

The Protestant Reformation was first and foremost an attempt to address the errors in teaching about the subject of justification and to present the divine truth as proclaimed by the apostles and recorded in their writings. Unfortunately this rift was solidified when the Council of Trent double-down on certain doctrinal errors on the subject of justification.

You are correct in asserting that Paul taught Timothy and Titus not to allow for the presence of people who caused dissension in the Church after they were warned. You are incorrect though in the application that Paul didn’t care about doctrine, particularly when it comes down to the subject of justification. The Letter to the Galatians demonstrates this, and is noteworthy in that it is the only place where Paul comes unglued because some were teaching incorrectly that our righteousness is obtained through means other than faith.

How do we explain our existence after 1500 years given Paul’s instructions to Titus? As Paul tells the Galatians: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” It is because the doctrinal issue that predicated the Reformation was never addressed, that we are not one body.

You won’t find in scripture, nor is there justification or excuses allowed for schism, heresy etc etc from the only Church Jesus established, the Catholic Church. And that can be shown from the beginning.

 

[Hodos]

Jesus established a Church to be obedient to His word, not to be teaching in contradiction to his word. Your definition of Church is at issue here. The Church is not an organization, the Church are those who are in submission to Christ.

 

[JonNC]

You won’t find in scripture, nor is there justification or excuses allowed for schism, heresy etc etc from the only Church Jesus established, the Catholic Church. And that can be shown from the beginning.

And yet the Catholic Church is currently in Schism, too.

• the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences.

Regardless of how one cuts it, you are as much a schismatic any Orthodox Christian, or “Protestant “.

 

[steve-b]

Jesus established a Church to be obedient to His word, not to be teaching in contradiction to his word. Your definition of Church is the issue. The Church is not an organization, the Church are those who are in submission to Christ.

Anyone after being shown the answer, and now has the knowledge of truth, and then willfully won’t come in, or come back in complete unity with the Catholic Church , would then NOT be in submission to Jesus and His prayer of perfect unity

 

[Hodos]

Anyone after being shown the answer, and now has the knowledge of truth, and then willfully won’t come in, or come back in complete unity with the Catholic Church , would then NOT be in submission to Jesus and His prayer of perfect unity

I think you missed the part where we already discussed that Protestants don’t believe that the issues surrounding the doctrine of justification were addressed. But again, as John NC has pointed out, Rome is just as guilty of schism with her Eastern brothers and sisters, and others…Perhaps when we come to doctrinal agreement through continued ecumenical dialogue then Rome, Wittenburg, Geneva, and Constantinople will all repent equally and recognize that we are all sinners who have disappointed Christ, and are in need of his grace alike.

 

[adf417]

But again, as John NC has pointed out, Rome is just as guilty of schism with her Eastern brothers and sisters, and others…Perhaps when we come to doctrinal agreement through continued ecumenical dialogue then Rome, Wittenburg, Geneva, and Constantinople will all repent equally and recognize that we are all sinners who have disappointed Christ, and are in need of his grace alike.

I simply cannot understand how this position does not 1st presume that Christ’s body is not perfect. This position, as i have mentioned to @JonNC in the past, is a dangerous position. If what you say is true, the gates of hell have prevailed and any new believer cannot know truth. Please pick a truth and profess it, stick with it, and profess it to be absolute truth as partial truth is not from God. Please stop with the “we can’t know absolute truth in terms of belief and and doctrines” statements. I think these kinds of statements make Christianity look weak and confused.

The part about we are all sinners and have disappointed Christ - :+1:t3: but please stop getting this confused with what we are supposed to do or how we are supposed to act. If we cant know these things absolutely then even the things we do agree on are subjective and that is a dangerous position for Christianity as a whole.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

I simply cannot understand how this position does not 1st presume that Christ’s body is not perfect. This position, as i have mentioned to @JonNC in the past, is a dangerous position. If what you say is true, the gates of hell have prevailed and any new believer cannot know truth. Please pick a truth and profess it, stick with it, and profess it to be absolute truth as partial truth is not from God. Please stop with the “we can’t know absolute truth in terms of belief and and doctrines” statements. I think these kinds of statements make Christianity look weak and confused.

It did not look weak and confused during the seven great councils of the Church. It is because of Schism that a true council cannot be held to solve our differences.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

I simply cannot understand how this position does not 1st presume that Christ’s body is not perfect. This position, as i have mentioned to @JonNC in the past, is a dangerous position. If what you say is true, the gates of hell have prevailed and any new believer cannot know truth. Please pick a truth and profess it, stick with it, and profess it to be absolute truth as partial truth is not from God. Please stop with the “we can’t know absolute truth in terms of belief and and doctrines” statements. I think these kinds of statements make Christianity look weak and confused.

It did not look weak and confused during the seven great councils of the Church. It is because of Schism that a true council cannot be held to solve our differences.

If it were about looks Jon, your ecumenical council count would drop to 1. It is quite clear that the council of Nicea 325 looked much worse for the church as a whole that anytime since and yet you profess councils after this point.

Peace!!!

 

[steve-b]

Anyone after being shown the answer, and now has the knowledge of truth, and then willfully won’t come in, or come back in complete unity with the Catholic Church , would then NOT be in submission to Jesus and His prayer of perfect unity

Hodos:

I think you missed the part where we already discussed that Protestants don’t believe that the issues surrounding the doctrine of justification were addressed.

Justification has most certainly been defined clearly by the Catholic Church.

Hodos:

But again, as John NC has pointed out, Rome is just as guilty of schism with her Eastern brothers and sisters, and others…

Let’s be Specific,

Eastern Catholics by definition are in complete union with the pope, the successor to St Peter, or they wouldn’t be Catholic.

Now Re: The E Orthodox OTOH,

a name that doesn’t even appear in the beginning, they exist via their schism from the Catholic Church. AND according to their recent history, 60+% of E Orthodoxy, the Russians) don’t even agree with the rest of the other Orthodox.They (the Russians) boycotted the Pan Orthodox meeting voiding the Pan definition .

Back in 2002 Card Kasper, then head of the Vatican ecumenical efforts said the following

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from The Crisis of Ecumenism, According to Cardinal Kasper - ZENIT - English

14 years later, the following happenes as a result of the Russians

Pan Orthodox council meeting Jun 27 2016 falls apart http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pan-orthodox-meltdown-ahead-of-great-council . 900+ yrs since their inception, they still can’t get together.

Hodos:

Perhaps when we come to doctrinal agreement through continued ecumenical dialogue then Rome, Wittenburg, Geneva, and Constantinople will all repent equally and recognize that we are all sinners who have disappointed Christ, and are in need of his grace alike.

Don’t forget this.
The Catholic Church is already ONE Church regardless of all those divided from her. They (the divided) are outside. They own that. The Catholic Church is THE CHURCH Jesus established on Peter as head and the apostles united with him. . Jesus gave all His promises to His Church. If division continues among the dividers, till the end of time, that doesn’t and won’t change the status of the Catholic Church.

AND don’t forget also

We don’t live in a consequence free existence. The consequences for division don’t go away for those in division from Our Lord’s Church, … holding to the various errors and heresies they profess.

 

[JonNC]

If it were about looks Jon, your ecumenical council count would drop to 1. It is quite clear that the council of Nicea 325 looked much worse for the church as a whole that anytime since and yet you profess councils after this point.

Peace!!!

I disagree. The seven councils are such a resource of authoritative determinations in the Church. We’ve had nothing like them since.

 

[steve-b]

adf417:

If it were about looks Jon, your ecumenical council count would drop to 1. It is quite clear that the council of Nicea 325 looked much worse for the church as a whole that anytime since and yet you profess councils after this point.

Peace!!!

I disagree. The seven councils are such a resource of authoritative determinations in the Church. We’ve had nothing like them since.

Of course we have. We’ve had 21 ecumenical councils.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

adf417:

If it were about looks Jon, your ecumenical council count would drop to 1. It is quite clear that the council of Nicea 325 looked much worse for the church as a whole that anytime since and yet you profess councils after this point.

Peace!!!

I disagree. The seven councils are such a resource of authoritative determinations in the Church. We’ve had nothing like them since.

Of course we have. We’ve had 21 ecumenical councils.

The councils after number 7 are effectively local councils only applying to the Bishop of Rome and bishops in communion with him.

 

[Hodos]

I simply cannot understand how this position does not 1st presume that Christ’s body is not perfect.

We are perfect righteous only through Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. This is usually described as a past action (completed). That being said, we are being sanctified (continuing action continuing into the future - See Romans 8).

If what you say is true, the gates of hell have prevailed and any new believer cannot know truth.

Nope. We have been given the gospel both through the written word and continually proclaimed to you. While the subjective declaration of the gospel is the means by which we are brought in to repentance and faith, instructed, reproached, and corrected the written word passed to us norms the oral proclamation of the gospel that we proclaim.

Please pick a truth and profess it, stick with it, and profess it to be absolute truth as partial truth is not from God.

Okay. Done.

Please stop with the “we can’t know absolute truth in terms of belief and and doctrines” statements. I think these kinds of statements make Christianity look weak and confused.

I don’t believe I have ever heard this professed from the Protestant apologetic.

The part about we are all sinners and have disappointed Christ - :+1:t3: but please stop getting this confused with what we are supposed to do or how we are supposed to act.

I’m not. As stated earlier, I said that true unity comes from unity in doctrine. I encouraged the continued use of ecumenical dialogue that we all may attain consensus and unity in the truth of the gospel.

If we cant know these things absolutely then even the things we do agree on are subjective and that is a dangerous position for Christianity as a whole.

Again, I have never heard a Protestant apologetic espouse this. Typically, we make the case God has indeed revealed his will, that God has done so with the intention that it is clear and knowable.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

adf417:

If it were about looks Jon, your ecumenical council count would drop to 1. It is quite clear that the council of Nicea 325 looked much worse for the church as a whole that anytime since and yet you profess councils after this point.

Peace!!!

I disagree. The seven councils are such a resource of authoritative determinations in the Church. We’ve had nothing like them since.

Of course we have. We’ve had 21 ecumenical councils.

The councils after number 7 are effectively local councils only applying to the Bishop of Rome and bishops in communion with him.

IOW the Catholic Church. The only Church Our Lord established.

Your view includes all those who WERE Catholic but are now outside the Catholic Church.