I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

[Contarini]

Hello, I want a Protestant whatever domination you belong to (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Methodist…), to answer this question, and I don’t intend to provoke or mock anyone, I just want to really try to understand.

When Martin Luther started the reformation in the XVI century until today, how the church survived and how Christianity existed in this almost 1500 years gap?
If we were to admit that Martin Luther and the Reformation in its main tenets were right, then we have to admit that the Catholic Church by logic is not infallible, and dogmas such as the Papal Infallibility are not true, therefore the Catholic Church is not the unique church founded by Christ.
But where was the True Doctrine in all its aspects during all this centuries? If you are a Christian in the V Century, or the X century, for example, how would you worship God?
If the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ there must be an alternative explanation since the beggining of the Christianity with the death and ressurection of christ, the writing of the gospels, the council to make the cannon etc. until present days.
Why then Jesus if he has a project to save all mankind, left the True Doctrine hidden during centuries and centuries, with the Church who influenced all the Western Civilization, influenced millions and millions of people, built monasteries, universities, and that was in its innermost not true? But where was this True Doctrine doing in all this period?

I don’t want a clumsy answer with a half-answer.

Please, I want a Consistent, Coherent, fully grounded and most important a Convincing answer to that question, don’t hesitate to give a large and consistent answer please, I really want to know how protestants explain this, because although i’m all open minded, I can’t grasp any answer that were given to me until now.

Thank you!

The simple answer is that Protestants don’t think that institutional infallibility is required for a true Church. Most Protestants today are quite willing to admit that their own churches probably get all sorts of things wrong, so it doesn’t bother them that they think the Catholic Church got lots of things wrong in the centuries before the Reformation (and since).

You’re imposing a Catholic paradigm on Protestants and demanding an answer that makes no sense in a Protestant context.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

The simple answer is that Protestants don’t think that institutional infallibility is required for a true Church. Most Protestants today are quite willing to admit that their own churches probably get all sorts of things wrong, so it doesn’t bother them that they think the Catholic Church got lots of things wrong in the centuries before the Reformation (and since).

You’re imposing a Catholic paradigm on Protestants and demanding an answer that makes no sense in a Protestant context.

Edwin

So true. We all need to be aware of where one sits before we ask where they stand. But it works both ways.

 

[Sunflake9]

God through the Holy Spirit inspired ALL the books in the Bible. Men in the 1500 decided they didn’t want some of them in their Bible. It’s a true insult to God to tell him that some of the books he inspired don’t belong in their Canon. If you truely value Gods written word (as we all should) read the Bible the way it was supposed to be. It was just fine for 1500 years. Men decided it needed wholesale editing/ removing books.

 

[JonNC]

=Ste

veVH;12288874]

But Jon, if vast numbers of non-Catholic Christians are professing a belief in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and yet have separated themselves from the very Church from whence the creed originated it seems inherently contradictory. My comments are especially directed to faith traditions that have strayed far from their roots, having rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church teaches and practices; the liturgy, the sacraments…and the “communion of saints” which is outright rejected, though professed.

I understand, Steve, though it does limit my comment some, since I can’t speak for those of which you speak. I might say that, as a Lutheran, while we currently find our traditions in division, that doesn’t mean we believe ourselves to be separated from the Church that originated it, but a part of it. Remember that, for us, the Church is the congregation of believers where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. We believe that to happen in our churches, and in yours, and many others.
Division wounds the Church, but doesn’t destroy it. That’s why the OP’s paradigm is, frankly, a foreign concept to us.

I guess for my comments to be valid I would have to know the specific beliefs of every denomination that professes the Nicene Creed. It just struck me as strange to have a bunch of divided faith communities professing a belief in one united church.

At the bare minimum (which isn’t the way it should be, obviously), we are joined and in union with Him through our Baptisms.

Thanks.

Always a pleasure, Steve.

Jon

 

[Lek]

The church existed for those 1,500 years in the form of followers of Christ. These followers may have been Catholic, Orthodox or something else, but their faith in Christ and their Christian baptism made them members of Christ’s church. God’s true word was always there for the church in the scriptures. Luther and the other reformers would not have said that because the Catholic church was in error in various doctrines, that they weren’t part of Christ’s church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

God through the Holy Spirit inspired ALL the books in the Bible. Men in the 1500 decided they didn’t want some of them in their Bible. It’s a true insult to God to tell him that some of the books he inspired don’t belong in their Canon. If you truely value Gods written word (as we all should) read the Bible the way it was supposed to be. It was just fine for 1500 years. Men decided it needed wholesale editing/ removing books.

Which canon? The RCC has a shorter canon than the EOs and the OOs. That must mean that RCs must not value Gods written word and not read the bible the way it’s supposed to be. Right?

 

[SteveVH]

=Ste

I understand, Steve, though it does limit my comment some, since I can’t speak for those of which you speak. I might say that, as a Lutheran, while we currently find our traditions in division, that doesn’t mean we believe ourselves to be separated from the Church that originated it, but a part of it. Remember that, for us, the Church is the congregation of believers where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. We believe that to happen in our churches, and in yours, and many others.
Division wounds the Church, but doesn’t destroy it. That’s why the OP’s paradigm is, frankly, a foreign concept to us.

I understand. And we also believe that you are a part of the Church. We must work to make our profession of faith a reality.

At the bare minimum (which isn’t the way it should be, obviously), we are joined and in union with Him through our Baptisms.

Amen.

 

[Tomyris]

But Jon, if vast numbers of non-Catholic Christians are professing a belief in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and yet have separated themselves from the very Church from whence the creed originated it seems inherently contradictory. My comments are especially directed to faith traditions that have strayed far from their roots, having rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church teaches and practices; the liturgy, the sacraments…and the “communion of saints” which is outright rejected, though professed.

I guess for my comments to be valid I would have to know the specific beliefs of every denomination that professes the Nicene Creed. It just struck me as strange to have a bunch of divided faith communities professing a belief in one united church.

Most Protestants have not “separated themselves” but have grown up as Christians for generations outside the Catholic Church. We cannot be charged with heresy, per your own catechism. On the other hand, recently many have left the Catholic Church with such a poor understanding of Catholicism that it is debatable that they knew the creeds and practices well enough to reject them, due to poor instruction in the faith.

 

[SteveVH]

Most Protestants have not “separated themselves” but have grown up as Christians for generations outside the Catholic Church.

I am aware that the children of the “Reformation” have not intentionally separated themselves from anyone or anything. But they walk the path of those that did and believe what they believed, or create new paths for themselves, quite apart from the ancient practice of the Church, and are therefore impoverished through lack of reception of the sacraments which give life. The very word “sacrament” is foreign to many Christians, they have strayed so far.

My only point is that there are wide divisions between those who profess the same creed. Something isn’t right about that.

We cannot be charged with heresy, per your own catechism.

True. When did I charge anyone with heresy?

On the other hand, recently many have left the Catholic Church with such a poor understanding of Catholicism that it is debatable that they knew the creeds and practices well enough to reject them, due to poor instruction in the faith.

Also true, sadly. On a brighter note, that is changing. Our young people know their faith much better than their parents, for the most part.

Blessings.

Steve

 

[Tomyris]

When did I charge anyone with heresy?

Didn’t. I was charging along, paraphrasing the Catholic Catechism, is all.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

“Unity we see today in Christianity”??? I wonder what kind of glasses your looking through!! The only unity is in the Catholic Church! God Bless, memaw

Huh? The Catholic Church is as unified as my church, the WELS. Probably even less so, since I have never heard of “WELS for Choice” or “WELS Women Priests”. Plus we are unified with approximately 29 other churches around the world. How many other churches is the Catholic Church unified with?

 

[Mystophilus]

A good question. From years attending sermons at an Anglican church I have not heard that being addressed. I think church history is generally ignored in Protestant denominations.

I cannot say that I have ever heard the particular topic addressed in an Anglican sermon. However, I have, in Anglican sermons, heard numerous Catholic theologians quoted, alongside Orthodox ones, Western mystics and Eastern monks, without any attempt to separate any of us from any of them.

On the other hand, Church history is routinely covered in Anglican seminaries and colleges (as, indeed, in those of other Protestant denominations), and so I do not think it at all fair to claim that Protestants ignore Church history: we just tend to direct sermons at (what we believe to be) the needs of a congregation today.

 

[Memaw]

Huh? The Catholic Church is as unified as my church, the WELS. Probably even less so, since I have never heard of “WELS for Choice” or “WELS Women Priests”. Plus we are unified with approximately 29 other churches around the world. How many other churches is the Catholic Church unified with?

I think your understanding of Unity is far different than the Catholic understanding. The Catholic Church IS unified in her Doctrine. Not all Catholics are in unity with what the Church teaches, but that’s true of all denominations too. But the Doctrine of the Catholic Church is the same today as it was when Jesus gave it to Her 2,000 years ago. I am amazed today at all the protestant ministers that are converting to the Catholic Church, seeking the TRUTH. As well as laypersons and reverts. God Bless them all and welcome home!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[adf417]

Which canon? The RCC has a shorter canon than the EOs and the OOs. That must mean that RCs must not value Gods written word and not read the bible the way it’s supposed to be. Right?

Could be, House! And choosing one of the three canons you describe above would actually make your argument for you, but further deviating form them weakens your argument. It sounds like you are saying, well, if the ones who say they are the true churches cant agree then why bother, lets make our own. I understand it is a difficult decision to make but “man up” and make a decision. Otherwise the trajectory your argument makes strengthens the argument the JW’s use to justify their distorted translation of their bible.

Peace!!!

 

[Kay_Cee]

No. It’s an inerrant statement, not an infallible one.

I wasn’t talking about whether or not the statement is inerrant. I asked if you were infallible while making it.

No. They are inerrant. Not infallible.

With respect to Scripture, the writers were fallible, but the Holy Spirit (God) who inspired it, is not. If it were dependant upon them as human writers, then yes, it would be fallible.

I never claimed such infallibility came from the human writers. Of course it comes from God. Are you saying it is impossible for God to imbue someone with infallibility while he is writing?

 

[devonsams]

But it doesn’t help a bit to say that “many are part of the same church” I cannot grasp this Ecumenism.

There are churches which:

1- Theology of Prosperity which the pastors take money from the faithful
2- There are Churches who say prematerial sex is Ok.
3- There are Churches who support abortion
4- There are churches who Deny that anyone will go to hell in the end.
5- There are churches who deny that Jesus is god and therefore they are unitarian.

So here is an issue of Logic, All religions can’t be true at the same time, and All Churches CANNOT be true in ALL its aspects at the same time, whether Jesus was God or Not, whether Abortion is Right or Not, whether gay marriage is right or not, whether Jesus founded an infallible Church or not, these are VERY, VERY Important issues that will make ALL the difference in the end, if Jesus in fact founded an infallible church we were very careless to ignore this.

So here is my point, there is a Truth, there is a TRUE DOCTRINE, there is a True Doctrine which there is a True doctrine of Justification, there is a True Doctrine with issues of abortion, gay marriage, theology etc.

All Churches cannot be true in ALL aspects at the same time, BUT THERE IS a true doctrine somewhere, and I guess THERE IS a Church with a true doctrine in all its time, because i believe there is a truth, therefore i believe there is a true doctrine (concerning all the aspects above) which is all true at the same time.

Then that’s my main point, I care about truth, I don’t care about if we are all christians and friends and so on… I care about what is truth in the end, and there is no point on saying that many are christians when many believe on things that won’t be true in the end, so our focus should be on what is true, and so if you say that no church has infallibility and plus many are christians and denominations THEN, therefore you must admit that Jesus left his true doctrine unclear, and many things he did not make clear of his doctrine, but I can’t conceive it, I think Jesus wanted us to follow a specific doctrine in many times in the Gospels, and it was not subject to many interpretations. Then I think 1- There is One Truth, 2-There is a True Doctrine in all senses, concerning their issues about marriage, abortion, exact form of venerations, 3- Many churches have different points of view about 2. 4- Therefore all churches cannot be all right, but There is one church which the truth belongs.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I think you’re confused about the definition of the word infallible, which concerns the capacity for error, not whether a particular statement or utterance is true or not: “incapable of making mistakes or being wrong,” “never failing; always effective.” No sadly, people are not infallible. Believing so is, in essence, the “original sin” (Gn. 3:5).

If I’m confused about the definition, then so is my dictionary. My dictionary defines infallible as “absolutely trustworthy or true.” Isn’t a person absolutely trustworthy when he says 2 + 2 = 4? If yes, then he is infallible at the moment he is making that statement because he is absolutely trustworthy when he is making it. If no, you cannot trust that 2 + 2 = 4.

There is no capacity for error when the statement coming out of a person’s mouth is 2 + 2 = 4. The statement is always true, and the person making it is infallible, that is, absolutely trustworthy, in making it.

I’m certainly not claiming that people are infallible at all times and under all circumstances. I never claimed they are incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. Only God is that. But people can also be right!

 

[Per_Crucem]

If I’m confused about the definition, then so is my dictionary. My dictionary defines infallible as “absolutely trustworthy or true.” Isn’t a person absolutely trustworthy when he says 2 + 2 = 4? If yes, then he is infallible at the moment he is making that statement because he is absolutely trustworthy when he is making it. If no, you cannot trust that 2 + 2 = 4.

There is no capacity for error when the statement coming out of a person’s mouth is 2 + 2 = 4. The statement is always true, and the person making it is infallible, that is, absolutely trustworthy, in making it.

I’m certainly not claiming that people are infallible at all times and under all circumstances. I never claimed they are incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. Only God is that. But people can also be right!

Merriam-Webster:

Infallible; not capable of being wrong or making mistakes.

Inerrant; free from error

Everything that an infallible person says is inerrant.

Not everyone who says something inerrant is infallible.

 

[SteveVH]

If I’m confused about the definition, then so is my dictionary. My dictionary defines infallible as “absolutely trustworthy or true.” Isn’t a person absolutely trustworthy when he says 2 + 2 = 4? If yes, then he is infallible at the moment he is making that statement because he is absolutely trustworthy when he is making it. If no, you cannot trust that 2 + 2 = 4.

The doctrine of infallibility does not mean that the Church will infallibly know that 2 + 2 = 4. It means that it is protected from ever saying that 2 + 2 = 5. Infallibility does not mean that the Church knows everything. It means that the Church is protected from error entering into the deposit of faith given once to the Church.

In other words, if the Pope was asked to take a trigonometry test with 100 questions and to answer infallibly, how many questions should he answer correctly? The answer is that he should not answer any of the questions because of the chance of error.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Starrsmother]

Every word a Pope says does NOT fall under the decree of infallibility. Thus if a Pope were to say, for instance, that it was Tuesday but the calendar clearly showed it to be Wednesday, the Pope is clearly wrong.

Moreover, even in religious matters, everything the Pope says is not infallible. An example would be if a Pope were to say something like so and so is the greatest of all saints— that is merely his personal opinion. A Pope is infallible ONLY in matters of faith or dogma and even then, only when he states that he is speaking as such. An example of this was when Pope Pius declared the dogma that Mary is the Immaculate Conception (conceived without sin as she was destined to be the mother of Jesus.) Most people had already came to this belief, but the Pope ended the discussion once and for all by infallible declaration.

Thus it’s fair to say that the Pope preaches and teaches with the same authority as any other priest or bishop far more often than he declares something to be “infallibly true or false” Believe me, if a Pope declares something as infallibly true you will know it because he will make no beans about it. Many Popes live their entire reign without ever declaring something to be infallibly true.