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

[TWJ]

Okay but you protestants are ignoring the point that it by logic mean that the orthodox church is not the true church too! The Orthodox also claim to be the infallible church of Christ, which means that it doesn’t help a bit with your explanation to know that the Orthodox existed before, because the orthodox ( will also be wrong ) in the end.

The ‘true church’ consists of believers in Christ as our saviour. It has nothing to do with any particular ‘denomination’ of any ‘physical church’. This is what is meant by the word, ‘Christian’ [followers of Christ and His teachings…HIS SHEEP].

The book of Revelation identifies various ‘churches/beliefs’, and how God evaluates them ‘hot’ or ‘cold’, or ‘fence-straddlers’]

 

[Godspells]

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!

Sadly, most Protestant denominations do not address this most pressing question. I will give you, however, my person view about it, though I cannot speak for all Protestant Christians. First, though, I think there are effectively three ways to approach this:

1. That the Roman Catholic Church is “part” of the universal church, but there are other branches or “lungs”. This is the view held by Anglicans.
2. That the Roman Catholic Church committed apostasy sometime before the reformation, and the reformation “restored” the true apostolic faith. Held by most protestant denominations.
3. The Roman Catholic Church is “not” the true Church, but broke away from the Orthodox Communion. This is held by the Orthodox (obviously).

In my humble estimation, the “Church” is much wider than the Roman Communion. As I see it, the Body of Christ are those who have the apostolic faith, and those who enact it in their lives by doing good work, loving others, and ultimately imitating Christ.

I believe that Catholics are also Christians, and I do believe they believe in all the essential articles of faith, though I believe also that they have added some things to the original faith, and in particular that is papal supremacy.

Having said that, I think God gave the Apostles the perfect faith, I do not believe He gave them a perfect polity. Politics have crept into the Church at various points in history, and some have risen the ranks of orders not out of servitude to God, but out of servitude to their own wealth.

I personally doubt that God Himself appointed Borgia as Pope. And, I really hope that one day Church will break away from this rule that such a corrupt Pontiff cannot be removed from the papacy. If a bishop deliberately neglects his duties to Christ, how can he serve as bishop? He has abdicated his order.

Fortunately, politicking I’ve noticed has been largely purged from the Church, but, I think that even Catholics have to admit that is, at least in part, due to pressure from the reformation.

Anyways, that is my take. In summary it is the apostolic faith that is important, not a particular church polity–most administrative devices were developed a little later in Church history.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Are you applying this to the Church Triumphant?

Jon

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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

think your understanding of Unity is far different than the Catholic understanding. The Catholic Church IS unified in her Doctrine.

So is every other denomination. Every denomination is unified with itself.

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 don’t see it that way. I think the RC has loads of doctrinal innovation.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

The CC is itself a union of churches. But it itself is in union with no other church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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!!!

That’s not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that since there has never been any agreed upon canon at any point in church history, claiming that one group “insults God” is both offensive and untrue.

 

[adf417]

That’s not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that since there has never been any agreed upon canon at any point in church history, claiming that one group “insults God” is both offensive and untrue.

What is offensive and un true is claiming that there has never been any agreed upon canon. If it were as you say there would have never been any reason for Luther, or anyone for that matter, to *justify *a smaller canon. The justification alone is enough to make me think .

Peace!!!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

What is offensive and un true is claiming that there has never been any agreed upon canon. If it were as you say there would have never been any reason for Luther, or anyone for that matter, to *justify *a smaller canon. The justification alone is enough to make me think .

Peace!!!

There hasn’t been any agreed upon canon for the church, that’s why there are so many different canons in circulation. And since the RC didn’t declare its canon until Trent, Luther was within bounds so to speak.

Really. You agree that our canon is an “insult to God”?

 

[JonNC]

What is offensive and un true is claiming that there has never been any agreed upon canon. If it were as you say there would have never been any reason for Luther, or anyone for that matter, to *justify *a smaller canon. The justification alone is enough to make me think .

Peace!!!

Hi adf,
When was there a time when Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy agreed on the same canon?
Which one changed, and when?

Jon

 

[devonsams]

Protestants, if the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, and other protestant churches belongs to one church alone, what is the criteria that defines a church that can belong to this Universal Church?

If a Church who says abortion is ok, she is still part of this bigger church? Or if she ordain women? Or if she says everybody will go to heavne?

 

[adf417]

There hasn’t been any agreed upon canon for the church, that’s why there are so many different canons in circulation. And since the RC didn’t declare its canon until Trent, Luther was within bounds so to speak.

No! There are so many canons (and distortions of canons) because people choose not to follow the decisions of the church Jesus left us. You can deny it all you want to but there has been an agreed upon canon sense 4th century.

Really. You agree that our canon is an “insult to God”?

No! these are your words.

Peace!!!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Protestants, if the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, and other protestant churches belongs to one church alone, what is the criteria that defines a church that can belong to this Universal Church?

If a Church who says abortion is ok, she is still part of this bigger church? Or if she ordain women? Or if she says everybody will go to heavne?

Protestants, if the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, and other protestant churches belongs to one church alone, what is the criteria that defines a church that can belong to this Universal Church?

The creeds. The creeds define orthodoxy. If a church accepts the creeds they are orthodox.

If a Church who says abortion is ok, she is still part of this bigger church? Or if she ordain women? Or if she says everybody will go to heavne?

Believers make up the church. Women’s ordination and abortion are false teachings, held to by some folks in the church.

 

[adf417]

Hi adf,
When was there a time when Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy agreed on the same canon?
Which one changed, and when?

Jon

Didn’t say east and west agreed upon a canon but that there was an agreed upon canon!

There are many things the east does not agree with the west on. Everyone has that prerogative.

Peace!!!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

No! There are so many canons (and distortions of canons) because people choose not to follow the decisions of the church Jesus left us. You can deny it all you want to but there has been an agreed upon canon sense 4th century.

No! these are your words.

Peace!!!

No! There are so many canons (and distortions of canons) because people choose not to follow the decisions of the church Jesus left us. You can deny it all you want to but there has been an agreed upon canon sense 4th century.

If the church was unified in 400, why did they reject what the council was declaring?

No! these are your words.

Not mine, they are the words of a poster named “Starsmother”.

 

[adf417]

If the church was unified in 400, why did they reject what the council was declaring?

I don’t know! But I does not seem like a justifiable reason to continue rejecting what the council was declaring and to further change its declarations.

Not mine, they are the words of a poster named “Starsmother”.

So why ask me?

Peace!!!

 

[devonsams]

The creeds. The creeds define orthodoxy. If a church accepts the creeds they are orthodox.

So you admit that in history, God gave an Infallible authority on creeds, therefore, there were Men in Councils who Infallibly defined things about the Dogmas to everybody follow?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So you admit that in history, God gave an Infallible authority on creeds, therefore, there were Men in Councils who Infallibly defined things about the Dogmas to everybody follow?

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.

 

[devonsams]

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.

And what about the discussion to choose the books of the New Testament? There were a lot of discussions to choose the Canon of the new testament. There must be someone, somehow who put an end to the discussion choosing the elected books? So if you believe the bible is inspired by God, you must first trust that some men choose the right books in the canon first.

If the Bible was all clear about an issue to all christians, then why the necessity to make a Council?
Anyway, where in the bible does it give authority for Creeds that would happen centuries later?

 

[adf417]

If the church was unified in 400, why did they reject what the council was declaring?

In this logic the church was not even unified in the 2nd century as the Arians would use this same logic to say most “Christians” did not agree with what became the Nicene creed. So if many “Christians” did not believe in the divinity of Christ then it must be ok with you and still consider them Christian based on this logic.

Peace!!!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

In this logic the church was not even unified in the 2nd century as the Arians would use this same logic to say most “Christians” did not agree with what became the Nicene creed. So if many “Christians” did not believe in the divinity of Christ then it must be ok with you and still consider them Christian based on this logic.

Peace!!!

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