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

[Tomyris]

Then I don’t understand why you think this would change anything. This charge is leveled quite often by Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, for reasons that are inexplicable to me. Join one or the other if you think the answer to truth lies somewhere between the two. Relative to the Protestant world they are nearly identical in their doctrines and liturgies, and quite distant from our Presbyterian brothers and sisters.

Oh. What kicked this off was me saying

Reunite with the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) and then this will be more credible.

‘this’ referring to Guanophore’s post and the claim that the One Church is united in faith. Since Catholics, Orthodox and Orientals differ in doctrine, the claim is not credible. Reunification would make the claim more credible, because then three would be united in doctrine, which is not the case now, but you claim it is one church.

<Not actually sure about the OO in this, but the point still is true with the Catholic-Orthodox split>

It some ways Reformed theology leans more heavily on the Orthodox than on the Catholic theology, so I have been told. And I think the differences are often exaggerated between us more than is necessary. The vast bulk of our theologies are the same. The differences are significant, but not, I think, irreconcilable. One reason I hang around here is to work on that.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It some ways Reformed theology leans more heavily on the Orthodox than on the Catholic theology, so I have been told. And I think the differences are often exaggerated between us more than is necessary. The vast bulk of our theologies are the same. The differences are significant, but not, I think, irreconcilable. One reason I hang around here is to work on that.

Not so sure on that one. Maybe with respect to some of the language vis a vie sacraments, but on soteriology, Orthodoxy is light years away from Calvinism. Catholicism would be much closer (at least with respect to predestination, which has some variance of thought within Catholic tradition).

 

[SteveVH]

Oh. What kicked this off was me saying

‘this’ referring to Guanophore’s post and the claim that the One Church is united in faith. Since Catholics, Orthodox and Orientals differ in doctrine, the claim is not credible. Reunification would make the claim more credible, because then three would be united in doctrine, which is not the case now, but you claim it is one church.

Okay. I get it. Should have read closer.

 

[Protestor]

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?

I think you should consider changing your question from “how the church survived” to how did the church survive. Also I suggest the second part of your question should be Did christianity exist during the 1500 year gap and if so who, what ,when, where, why, and how?. This question has the advantage of basically being a summary of the rest of your questions as well.

If we were to admit that Martin Luther and the Reformation in its main tenets were right, then we would have to admit that the Catholic Church is by logic, fallible, and dogmas such as the Papal Infallibility are not true, therefore the Catholic Church is not the unique church founded by Christ.

Why is the church not unique if the Reformation is true? This was an assertion not a question, but it seems to be wrong anyway.

But where was the True Doctrine in all its aspects during all these centuries? If you are a Christian in the V Century, or the X century, for example, how would you worship God?

I do not know I am not a catholic church historian.

If the Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ there must be an alternative explanation since the beginning of the Christianity with the death and resurrection of christ, the writing of the gospels, the council to make the cannons etc. until present days.

Your question is awkward because everything after “with” doesn’t really connect well with what came before. I really don’t understand what you are asking and I really don’t think there is a question here. This is IMNSHO just another assertion.

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?

Hidden? Do protestants claim the true doctrines are or were hidden? Is “why then Jesus if” english for something? I am not sure that the rest is english either.I think the question should be Why would Jesus have a project to save mankind and not give the people he told to do it the truth? Why would Jesus keep the truth hidden for centuries?

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

Seri Bro

most important a Convincing answer to that question,

Which question?

Anything in grey is what I think you should have wrote.

 

[SteveVH]

I would.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Not at all. The creeds are inerrant because they agree with scripture, not because some men, however prestigious declared them to be. The only infallible authority is scripture.

House you have a misunderstanding about the meaning of infallibility. In relates to being free from error when taking an action. Scripture does not have the capability of acting. Scripture is Holy, inspired, and inerrant, ,but Scripture does not have a will, cannot make decisions and exercise discernment, or take responsibility and accountability for actions. Only persons can be fallible, ,because only persons have the qualities required to act.

By assigning to Holy Scripture qualities it does not possess, inadvertantly one makes one’s own self the authority, because the reader must interpret and apply what is read, which Scripture does not do of itself.

The makers of the Creeds were protected by the Holy Spirit from making an error, just as Jesus said, He would lead the Church into “all Truth”. They were an infallible act of the HS, ,working through the Church, just like the creation of Scripture was an infallible act, moved by the Holy Spirit, free from error.

It is not any prestige of men, but the prestige of the HS, so that, like the Apostles could say at the council of Jerusalem “it seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us”…

 

[guanophore]

That’s silly. One cannot be a Christian and disbelieve in Christ’s divinity, since the scriptures clearly teach it.

You see this in Scripture because you believe it before reading it. Those who do not accept this see something else when they read it. 80% of the Bishops in the second century read the Scriptures, yet they still fell into the Arian heresy. Today, we have Mormons and JW’s who reject the Trinity.

One CAN be a Christian and have different opinions on the canon, and they did.  Christians from Jerome to Cajetan help to varying views of the canon.

One can. It is true that Christians used the canon that was handed down to them by the Apostles. What is different, though is that no Christians took any books OUT of the canon until the Reformation. The canon is not formed/approved by individuals, but by the Megesterium - the successors of the Apostles to whom authority was given. All Bible scholars, including Jerome, submitted themselves to the authority of the Church - until Luther.

 

[guanophore]

Which sacred tradition? RC sacred tradition, EO sacred tradition, OO sacred tradition? How should I decide who has the correct sacred tradition?

Sacred Tradition is Truth that has been revealed to the Church by God.

If you cannot trust the Church founded by Christ, I do not think you will be able to decide. You are left adrift, led by your own perceptions of what is written in Scripture.

What is significant is that you believe things that ll of these Communions consider heresy. Why do you suppose that might be?

 

[guanophore]

Reunite with the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) and then this will be more credible.

I agree. But this still leaves Protestants without accepting elements of the faith that we already share with EO and OO.

When I ask Protestants who don’t agree with Rome why they don’t become Orthodox, they often tell me the doctrinal differences are too vast.

If the issues separating Protestants from Roman Catholicism were only resulting from breaking with Rome, then Protestants could easily be at home with the EO. This cannot happen for reasons that go far beyond “Rome”. It is impossible because of a progressive and serious departure from the Apostolic faith.

The unity He has in mind may be different from what your denomination insists is unity.

I am sure we can agree on what Scripture says. Scripture is clear that unity emanates from Truth. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He wants us to be One, as He and the Father are One.

Look at Luke 9:49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

Jesus rebuked their control issues, a warning against a future insistence that everyone submit to these guys,.

No, He rebuked them for exclusivity. The Catholic Church acknowledges that there are those who belong to Christ that are not visibly part of the CC.

At the same time, those that belong to Him will not be “against us”.

Everything in Protestantism is defined by which parts, and how much, of the CC they reject.

Look at John 21:21ff "When Peter saw [John, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”
Peter was acting like he had pastoral authority over John. Jesus rebuked him for presumption and being a nosey-parker.

There is absolutely nothing about his passage that,The point Jesus is making to Peter is to focus on his own call and vocation, and not to be curious about what his own future will bring, or that of others, but to serve the Lord faithfully, keeping to the way he has marked out for oneself.

And in Matthew 16:17 Jesus blessed Peter, there is the build my church and the keys, and in v 23 "Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

Did Jesus build his church on Satan? No. Did he build it on Simon? No. He built in on Himself and on the confession of faith that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Jesus did build His Church upon Peter. God never changes a persons’ name without huge import in the vocation and mission of that person. Simon bar Jonah became Peter/Cephas (rock). Jesus grafted Peter into Himself, as cornerstone.

The denial that Peter is part of the foundation of the Church is refuted by Scripture itself.

“…built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20)

Peter is part of the foundation. His statement of faith is also a rocky statement.
[/quote]

 

[guanophore]

Frankly, I don’t know what my reaction would be if reunification occurred.

I honestly don’t know. Perhaps as part of the reunification they would agree to what I believe.

I know that is what many evangelicals would like,but it cannot happen because the EO and OO cannot give up the One Faith that was handed down from the Apostles. If they were to agree to what you believe, they would have to accept “a different gospel” and would find themselves accursed.

 

[devonsams]

Did Jesus build his church on Satan? No. Did he build it on Simon? No. He built in on Himself and on the confession of faith that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

What do you define by “Jesus founding his church in himself”?

And most important of all, how would we follow his church (himself)? We would have to follow some doctrine about sex, marriage? We would have to follow a Church a Chapel, a building in this world?

It’s easy to say: “Jesus founded his church in himself” when it is so subjective, when millions of people will have different opinions about what is Jesus founding his church in himself.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Sacred Tradition is Truth that has been revealed to the Church by God.

If you cannot trust the Church founded by Christ, I do not think you will be able to decide. You are left adrift, led by your own perceptions of what is written in Scripture.

What is significant is that you believe things that ll of these Communions consider heresy. Why do you suppose that might be?

Sacred Tradition is Truth that has been revealed to the Church by God.

Which sacred tradition? RC sacred tradition, EO sacred tradition?

If you cannot trust the Church founded by Christ, I do not think you will be able to decide. You are left adrift, led by your own perceptions of what is written in Scripture.

How did you decide the RCC was the true church without being led by your own perceptions of what is written in scripture?

What is significant is that you believe things that ll of these Communions consider heresy. Why do you suppose that might be?

What do I believe that is considered heresy?

 

[Tomster]

The early church was rife with factionalism, strife, and divisions. Nothing like the model of unity we see today in Christianity.

“Model of unity we see today.”?

You’ve got to be kidding,

 

[House_Harkonnen]

House you have a misunderstanding about the meaning of infallibility. In relates to being free from error when taking an action. Scripture does not have the capability of acting. Scripture is Holy, inspired, and inerrant, ,but Scripture does not have a will, cannot make decisions and exercise discernment, or take responsibility and accountability for actions. Only persons can be fallible, ,because only persons have the qualities required to act.

By assigning to Holy Scripture qualities it does not possess, inadvertantly one makes one’s own self the authority, because the reader must interpret and apply what is read, which Scripture does not do of itself.

The makers of the Creeds were protected by the Holy Spirit from making an error, just as Jesus said, He would lead the Church into “all Truth”. They were an infallible act of the HS, ,working through the Church, just like the creation of Scripture was an infallible act, moved by the Holy Spirit, free from error.

It is not any prestige of men, but the prestige of the HS, so that, like the Apostles could say at the council of Jerusalem “it seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us”…

House you have a misunderstanding about the meaning of infallibility. In relates to being free from error when taking an action. Scripture does not have the capability of acting. Scripture is Holy, inspired, and inerrant, ,but Scripture does not have a will, cannot make decisions and exercise discernment, or take responsibility and accountability for actions. Only persons can be fallible, ,because only persons have the qualities required to act.

Okay, I can buy that.

By assigning to Holy Scripture qualities it does not possess, inadvertantly one makes one’s own self the authority, because the reader must interpret and apply what is read, which Scripture does not do of itself.

I disagree. I think scripture interprets scripture. Not to say that denominations don’t have their hermeneutical principles. Some more befuddling then others. But the average joe can pick up a bible, who has never heard it before, read it, and come away with saving knowledge of Christ, even if they get other things wrong.

The makers of the Creeds were protected by the Holy Spirit from making an error, just as Jesus said, He would lead the Church into “all Truth”. They were an infallible act of the HS, ,working through the Church, just like the creation of Scripture was an infallible act, moved by the Holy Spirit, free from error.

Were the makers of the original Nicene creed protected? Even though they left out the Holy Spirit clause? The HS just didn’t want to define itself at that point! How about the additions at Constantinople, were they lead by the HS? What about when your denomination added the Filioque, was it protected then too? Even though most popes and the majority of the church disagreed with it? If so, why didn’t the HS just tell what he wanted to say originally?

 

[Tomster]

The early church was rife with factionalism, strife, and divisions. Nothing like the model of unity we see today in Christianity.

Believe it not, I have been conversing with a Lutheran on another thread who admitted that all of the different Lutheran churches are not in communion with each other.

Please explain that.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Believe it not, I have been conversing with a Lutheran on another thread who admitted that all of the different Lutheran churches are not in communion with each other.

Please explain that.

My tiny Lutheran denomination is in full communion with 29 other Lutheran churches around the world. How many different churches is the Catholic Church in union with? Of course all denominations are unified with self. But the CC even being a union of churches cannot claim unity with any other church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

“Model of unity we see today.”?

You’ve got to be kidding,

Not at all. Christians are far more unified today than even hundreds of years ago, and definitely more than the early church for the first few hundred years.

 

[Tomster]

Okay, I can buy that.

I disagree. I think scripture interprets scripture. Not to say that denominations don’t have their hermeneutical principles. Some more befuddling then others. But the average joe can pick up a bible, who has never heard it before, read it, and come away with saving knowledge of Christ, even if they get other things wrong.

Were the makers of the original Nicene creed protected? Even though they left out the Holy Spirit clause? The HS just didn’t want to define itself at that point! How about the additions at Constantinople, were they lead by the HS? What about when your denomination added the Filioque, was it protected then too? Even though most popes and the majority of the church disagreed with it? If so, why didn’t the HS just tell what he wanted to say originally?

Just a word regarding your remarks concerning the insertion of the Filioque clause.

You need to do some homework on this topic. I mean REALLY!

By the middle of the 6th century (pre-Lutheran), the phrase was inserted in the Spanish liturgy as a sincere effort to avoid certain deviant ideas about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Gradually the whole West adopted the insertion, eventually approved by Rome. But the Eastern Orthodox to this day object to what they call either a heretical tampering with the Creed or an unjustified exercise of papal authority.

To help you out in this matter I would suggest getting a copy of “The Catholic Catechism” - “A Comtemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church” by Servant of God John A. Hardon, S.J.

 

[SteveVH]

I disagree. I think scripture interprets scripture.

A text cannot interpret anything. It takes a living, rational mind to interpret a written text. In the case of the Bible it takes a mind that is familiar with the age, culture, customs, idioms and various modes of expression in place at the time the text was written. It cannot be read as a modern novel or newspaper or journal. And, most importantly, it must be read through the lens of Sacred Tradition and the Church from whence it came.

Were the makers of the original Nicene creed protected?

Yes. It contains nothing erroneous.

Even though they left out the Holy Spirit clause?

Yes. Unless you can show me error. It was added in order to define more clearly what the Church had always believed, but now was being questioned by some.

The HS just didn’t want to define itself at that point! How about the additions at Constantinople, were they lead by the HS? What about when your denomination added the Filioque, was it protected then too? Even though most popes and the majority of the church disagreed with it? If so, why didn’t the HS just tell what he wanted to say originally?

Unless you can show error in anything the Church proclaims to be true then you have no basis for claiming that it is not protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Just a word regarding your remarks concerning the insertion of the Filioque clause.

You need to do some homework on this topic. I mean REALLY!

By the middle of the 6th century (pre-Lutheran), the phrase was inserted in the Spanish liturgy as a sincere effort to avoid certain deviant ideas about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Gradually the whole West adopted the insertion, eventually approved by Rome. But the Eastern Orthodox to this day object to what they call either a heretical tampering with the Creed or an unjustified exercise of papal authority.

To help you out in this matter I would suggest getting a copy of “The Catholic Catechism” - “A Comtemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church” by Servant of God John A. Hardon, S.J.

We both know that’s a half truth. In fact popes for generations rejected it, even after the Spanish addition. In fact one pope whose name escapes me at the moment had it engraved in gold sans Filioque pledging it would never happen. It wasn’t until Frankish domination of the papacy that it gained major traction. That pope who did the engraving must not have been being led by the HS right?