If it wasn't for Martin Luther

[adstrinity]

…Do you think Protestants would have come up with the arguments at a later date? Sola Scriptura and all of its entropic misunderstandings and declaring some of the Bible non-Canonical? It seems to me that Protestants, especially Protestants who don’t believe in anything that was done prior to 200 years ago, dumbly say things that they have heard or read without really thinking about it, dare I say, fully believing it. They just don’t even know what is truth, but, they’ll say, “Show me in the Bible,” and if it is shown, they say you’re not looking at it correctly. Do you think they would be this, oh, let’s say, “intelligent,” if it wasn’t for Martin Luther?

Since they say that all one needs is the Bible to be in communion with God, do you think, without reading what others have wrote, they would have been able to decipher things the way they have? OR, do you think, if they HADN’T read Martin Luther and John Calvin and Henry VIII et al, they would have come up with a much worse/heretical interpretation?

Of course, this IS assuming that anybody would have had the audacity to brake away from Jesus’ Bride in the first place…do you think, if it wasn’t for Martin Luther, anybody would have done so and come up with erroneous doctrine at a later date?

 

[ralphinal]

Someone else would have. I had a history teacher in high school who said “Never think any one man is so smart that no other man would never figure out the same thing if he had the same information.” Sooner or later, someone else would have fallen prey to the same errors.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

…Do you think Protestants would have come up with the arguments at a later date? …

Of course.

How else would Ulrich Zwingli of the Swiss Reformation justify abandoning tradtions and cultural seasons such as Lent?

How else would King Henry VIII (Church of England) justify his divorce?

How else could John Calvin (Calvinism) create a state controlled by clergy (a theocracy)?

How else could John Knox (Presbyterians) followers allow female ordinations?

How else could Robert Browne (Congregationalists) create local congregations who should not submit to any outside or government authorities?

How else could John Smythe (Baptists) baptize himself?

How else could William Miller (Adventists) predict the Second Coming?

How else could Joseph Smith (Mormon) be a polygamist?

How else could Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientist) believe that poverty, suffering, and death don’t exist?

How else could Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witness) believe that Jesus is not the Son of God but rather is the Archangel Michael?

How else could Charles Fox Parham (Pentecostal) believe that speaking in tongues was evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit?

How else could Felix Manalo (Iglesia Ni Cristo) believe that God is not a Trinity?

and on and on it goes…

 

[ralphinal]

Wasn’t Huss before Luther?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Wasn’t Huss before Luther?

Yes, and so was John Wycliffe and William Tyndale.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

…Do you think Protestants would have come up with the arguments at a later date? Sola Scriptura and all of its entropic misunderstandings and declaring some of the Bible non-Canonical? It seems to me that Protestants, especially Protestants who don’t believe in anything that was done prior to 200 years ago, dumbly say things that they have heard or read without really thinking about it, dare I say, fully believing it. They just don’t even know what is truth, but, they’ll say, “Show me in the Bible,” and if it is shown, they say you’re not looking at it correctly. Do you think they would be this, oh, let’s say, “intelligent,” if it wasn’t for Martin Luther?

Since they say that all one needs is the Bible to be in communion with God, do you think, without reading what others have wrote, they would have been able to decipher things the way they have? OR, do you think, if they HADN’T read Martin Luther and John Calvin and Henry VIII et al, they would have come up with a much worse/heretical interpretation?

Of course, this IS assuming that anybody would have had the audacity to brake away from Jesus’ Bride in the first place…do you think, if it wasn’t for Martin Luther, anybody would have done so and come up with erroneous doctrine at a later date?

The only thing I’d say in defense of the sola scriptura argument protestants make is that the Early Church Fathers usually used scripture as their real basis for making theological dogma. If you read the first councils or the famous early fathers like Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius of Antioch, they quote scripture like crazy left and right! The Didache does as well. The Church was scripture-based from the get-go. I notice the early fathers use the OT constantly! The councils like Nicea, Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc. were not decided in a vacuuum but rather by analysis of scripture, debate about it, and votes (yes votes, not papal proclamations). So, using adjectives like “dumbly” to describe protestants’ reliance upon scripture to prove or disprove theological points isn’t really fair IMO. And “dumbly” sure doesn’t make a Lutheran or Anglican smile and want to warm up to your way of thinking. “Dumb” isn’t a word I use in my classroom everyday and it sure as heck doesn’t endear my students! I believe in tradition and the Church but the scriptures were, until the middle ages, the main proof and backup of theolgical opinions and argument.

 

[jblake]

adstrinity;:

Do you think Protestants would have come up with the arguments at a later date?

Once you get past Luther’s specific objections to certain practices by most Catholic clerics of the time, you’ll discover that he said nothing that was original.

One can make a good case that even his objections to those specific practices weren’t original, but merely an echo from more than a century earlier.

The Crusade of 1204, Albigensian Crusade, Hussite Crusade, Wendish Crusade, and Third Swedish Crusade are examples of how Catholics dealt with Christians prior to Luther. (You can figure out which Crusade killed members of which branch of Christianity.)

xan

jonathon

 

[grandfather]

…Do you think Protestants would have come up with the arguments at a later date? Sola Scriptura and all of its entropic misunderstandings and declaring some of the Bible non-Canonical? …Of course, this IS assuming that anybody would have had the audacity to brake away from Jesus’ Bride in the first place…do you think, if it wasn’t for Martin Luther, anybody would have done so and come up with erroneous doctrine at a later date?

The more fundamental question is was denominationalism inevitable. The answer is no. Luther’s doctrine sola scriptura is the justification for starting a “church” of your own and trying to attract members.

On the other hand Luther was an actor on the stage and the stage was not set by him. The Church was full of corruption. There were always holy saints, but there were also some very unholy popes and bishops. Human nature being what it is, it was inevitable that someone would come along and rebel against corrupt leadership. Savanrola never disputed Catholic dogma, but called the pope out.

My speculation is that Christian division (which is sinful and evil) was probably inevitable, because it is a punishment for sin. You can not blame Luther for Alexander VI and the Borgias. Luther may have been the guy who lit the fuse, but someone else made the bomb.

 

[jblake]

grandfather;:

The more fundamental question is was denominationalism inevitable. The answer is no.

Considering that it traces back to circa 100 AD, I’d suggest that it was inevitable. (80 AD if the research that that Japanese Scholar has done, holds up. But then, if that research holds up, it blows away everything you thought you knew about the history of the early church. )

There is a group that claims that not only were denominations part of God’s plan, but provides scriptural support for their claims.

xan

jonathon

 

[ralphinal]

Considering that it traces back to circa 100 AD, I’d suggest that it was inevitable. (80 AD if the research that that Japanese Scholar has done, holds up. But then, if that research holds up, it blows away everything you thought you knew about the history of the early church. )

There is a group that claims that not only were denominations part of God’s plan, but provides scriptural support for their claims.

xan

jonathon

Do you have more information on this?

 

[grandfather]

Considering that it traces back to circa 100 AD, I’d suggest that it was inevitable. (80 AD if the research that that Japanese Scholar has done, holds up. But then, if that research holds up, it blows away everything you thought you knew about the history of the early church. )

There is a group that claims that not only were denominations part of God’s plan, but provides scriptural support for their claims.

xan

jonathon

There were always schisms and heresies and disputes. They go back to when the Saint John the Apsotle was alive.

But let’s consider whether it is possible to be part of God’s will.

If we look at scripture we see God command unity of us. THis is not found in one place, but many. So if disunity and division were part of His plan and He commanded us to remain one body we have a contradiction.

Secondly, we are one if we believe the same truths of the faith. We claim that the Holy Spirit leads us into truth and will for all time as Jesus promises us scripture.

If the Holy Spirit leads Baptists to believe one thing, Lutherans another, Methodists something else and Calvinists still something different, then God contradicts Himself (which is impossible) and He can not be leading them all into truth. Truth can not contradict itself. These different denominations can not all be right in their doctrine. Denominationalism therefore not only contradicts what scripture reveals to us as God’s will for His people, but its contradictions demonstrate that it is logicallly impossible for denominationalism to be God’s will.

 

[grandfather]

It is impossible that God would tell Methodists salvation can be lost and Calvinists that once saved always saved. It is impossible that God would tell Metodists that there are four means of knowing truth, scripture, tradition, experience and intellect, and tell Lutherans there is only one, scripture alone. God is not the author of confusion and that is what denominationalism is. There is one flock, one body, one truth, one faith, on Church.

 

[Esperance]

Yes, and so was John Wycliffe and William Tyndale.

Yes and so was Arius and Pelagius

 

[adstrinity]

Wasn’t Huss before Luther?

Yes, and so was John Wycliffe and William Tyndale.

But all around the same time, right?

I was under the impression that it went from Arminian to Luther and it disolved from Luther after…CLEARLY I have not looked at history…

 

[PerryJ]

Protestantism isn’t about the Bible. It is about free choice. I haven’t seen one Protestant win a discussion. So if they never win why do they continue? They want freedom of choice. They want the God they made up. God is made to fit their personal agenda. The evidence against them is too overwhelming for it to be anything else.

 

[ralphinal]

But all around the same time, right?

I was under the impression that it went from Arminian to Luther and it disolved from Luther after…CLEARLY I have not looked at history…

Maybe you are not that far off. The question is if anyone else could have caused as much trouble. Part of the split was in fact due to political posturing between German princes and the Holy Roman Empire. France played both ends against the middle for her own gain. No other Reformer had the political situation to help foster the split.

I know that this is not a theological answer, but sometimes it is not theology that is the problem.

 

[Lisdogan]

Protestantism isn’t about the Bible. It is about free choice. I haven’t seen one Protestant win a discussion. So if they never win why do they continue? They want freedom of choice. They want the God they made up. God is made to fit their personal agenda. The evidence against them is too overwhelming for it to be anything else.

Ah come on - this is a series of gross generalisations actually ie

that Pr is not about the Bible (perhaps it is rather more about Jesus Christ and his mission);

that Pr’s never win a discussion (they are perhaps more learned about the life of a Christian daily, rather than the efficacy of the Eucharist);

they never win? (who says?);

why do they continue? (why not - they have a good line on God and Christ);

they made up God? (mainline Prs are far to humble to even think of taking that route);

that God is made to fit their agenda? (be thankful they have an agenda which includes faith and works).

I am not sure what you mean when you write: The evidence against them is too overwhelming for it to be anything else. Which evidence; against whom in particular; how overwhelming; ‘to be anything else’ - what?

I think that what grandfather wrote earlier on is right on:

On the other hand Luther was an actor on the stage and the stage was not set by him. The Church was full of corruption. There were always holy saints, but there were also some very unholy popes and bishops. Human nature being what it is, it was inevitable that someone would come along and rebel against corrupt leadership. Savanrola never disputed Catholic dogma, but called the pope out.

My speculation is that Christian division (which is sinful and evil) was probably inevitable, because it is a punishment for sin. You can not blame Luther for Alexander VI and the Borgias. Luther may have been the guy who lit the fuse, but someone else made the bomb.

The church was on a downward slide. How far down would it have slid if someone had not put a good stout tree in its path? Whether it was Luther or someone else?

I am a practising Catholic, but I have absolutely no doubt that in a historical sense the Church needed Luther or ANOther.

And why do we assume that a variety of denominations is anti-Christ? A democracy is stronger when there is more than one party: disagreement, discussion, debate all lead to better understandings of principles and correct action on varying sides. I have absolutely no problem with the existence of n denominations ranging from Catholicism through Methodist, Baptist, Anglican etc. We may see the Catholic Church as primus inter pares (first among equals) because it holds the keys and the archives and the scholarship, but that does not detract from the authority and legitimacy of many other Christian denominations which have chosen a different route to Christ.

In Christ,

 

[PerryJ]

Maybe you are not that far off. The question is if anyone else could have caused as much trouble. Part of the split was in fact due to political posturing between German princes and the Holy Roman Empire. France played both ends against the middle for her own gain. No other Reformer had the political situation to help foster the split.

I know that this is not a theological answer, but sometimes it is not theology that is the problem.

Your post is very true. It is interesting the Protestants think that there was this great theological rebellion. Much of it was political in nature. I find it an interesting parallel between the Reformation and the Crucifixion. With Jesus and Barabas man could hold to the truth of God or choose wordly powers. Man chose wordly powers. Even though Catholicism had its flaws during the time of the Reformation much of it was man choosing between the truth of God and wordly powers. The Reformation was very much driven by monarchies choosing wordly powers. I do not see how Protestants do not see this link aas it is found in every history book.

 

[PerryJ]

Ah come on - this is a series of gross generalisations actually ie

that Pr is not about the Bible (perhaps it is rather more about Jesus Christ and his mission);

that Pr’s never win a discussion (they are perhaps more learned about the life of a Christian daily, rather than the efficacy of the Eucharist);

they never win? (who says?);

why do they continue? (why not - they have a good line on God and Christ);

they made up God? (mainline Prs are far to humble to even think of taking that route);

that God is made to fit their agenda? (be thankful they have an agenda which includes faith and works).

I am not sure what you mean when you write: The evidence against them is too overwhelming for it to be anything else. Which evidence; against whom in particular; how overwhelming; ‘to be anything else’ - what?

I think that what grandfather wrote earlier on is right on:

On the other hand Luther was an actor on the stage and the stage was not set by him. The Church was full of corruption. There were always holy saints, but there were also some very unholy popes and bishops. Human nature being what it is, it was inevitable that someone would come along and rebel against corrupt leadership. Savanrola never disputed Catholic dogma, but called the pope out.

My speculation is that Christian division (which is sinful and evil) was probably inevitable, because it is a punishment for sin. You can not blame Luther for Alexander VI and the Borgias. Luther may have been the guy who lit the fuse, but someone else made the bomb.

The church was on a downward slide. How far down would it have slid if someone had not put a good stout tree in its path? Whether it was Luther or someone else?

I am a practising Catholic, but I have absolutely no doubt that in a historical sense the Church needed Luther or ANOther.

And why do we assume that a variety of denominations is anti-Christ? A democracy is stronger when there is more than one party: disagreement, discussion, debate all lead to better understandings of principles and correct action on varying sides. I have absolutely no problem with the existence of n denominations ranging from Catholicism through Methodist, Baptist, Anglican etc. We may see the Catholic Church as primus inter pares (first among equals) because it holds the keys and the archives and the scholarship, but that does not detract from the authority and legitimacy of many other Christian denominations which have chosen a different route to Christ.

In Christ,

It is a generalization as I was not writing a book.

I was a Protestant and understand the thought very well. I was very anticatholic for many years.

There have been reformers before and after Luther that worked within the Church. Splitting the Church was not the solution. A response will be it was not his intent. I would disagree to an extent. He went to Rome and knew of the failures of the Papacy. He did nothing and wrote nothing. It wasn’t until he created his knew theology, based out of fear, that he went against Rome. There is nothing romantic about Luther and the Reformation. Romanticising Luther and Calvin does not help this world. Both performed witch hunts. Calvin executed or excommunicated 6 percent of the population of Geneva in 5 years. If Catholics had done this we would have killed tens of millions. Calvin strapped a Bible on the chest of a man and watched him slowly burn to death. He strapped the Bible on the person’s chest because he wanted the person to feel the flames of the fire in his face. Luther believed in sorcery and that he had been hexed. He burned witches at the stake. Approved the killing of 100,000 people. Compare that to the indulgences the Pope was selling to complete the Sistene Chapel. Pretending the the Reformers were pious is a disservice to all. I could go on and on as these were not good people.

As far as who wins, watch the forums. They ignore both Christian and secular history, archealogical finds, exegesis of the Bible, all to follow a man that juxtaposed Roman 1:17 backwards to find a new faith because he feared the Lord so much he was petrified. this is written in his own hand writing.

“They are perhaps more learned about the life of a Christian daily” who says? There are many good Protestant people. Concerning their faith how many Protestants religions believe in self sacrificing love for Christ? Tell me how many Protestant religions profess redemptive suffering? Do you know? The whole point of Protestant Reformation was to leave self sacrificing for the Lord. Read about Luther and Calvin and it is there. It is not a mystery.

 

[grandfather]

Protestantism isn’t about the Bible. It is about free choice. I haven’t seen one Protestant win a discussion. So if they never win why do they continue? They want freedom of choice. They want the God they made up. God is made to fit their personal agenda. The evidence against them is too overwhelming for it to be anything else.

There is an essential difference between the heresies of history and Protestantism. There were major theological conflicts and disputes throughout Church history. We can assume that all of them were between people who were sincere in their beliefs. The Christological heresies in the early part of Christian history were hotly disputed by the adherents of opposing doctrines. Let’s take the Arian heresy as an example. The dispute was about which belief chould be adopted by the Church. Is Jesus truly God, the Second Person of the Trinity, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, or is He a created being as angels are created spirits?

The turmoil this created was great, but what the opposing parties were trying to do is get their position adopted by the Church. They did not attampt to go start their own separate organization and call it a church.

So one of the things that is new with Protestantism is the idea that there can be a break away Church, and then from that separated stand alone entity many breakaway independent churches divided from one another. Some say there are 28,000 denominations. I don’t know if that is true, but in my little town of 30,000 or so, there are 125 different disparate groups that call themselves church and have some unique belief or doctrine that makes them different from the others.

In this thing we call Protestantism from its very beginning is doctrinally programmed to split and resplit. The reason is one of its essential beliefs is that all authority is in scripture. That means the Church has none. There is no institution whether it is founded by Christ or not that can interpret scripture. Protestant friends tell me scripture interprets scripture. That is so bizarre I can’t even answer it.

So while there have always been theological disputes over what is doctrinally true or false, until the advent of the phenomenon of Protestantism in history we never saw this constant fracturing. The earlier disputers fought to get the Church to agree with them, and did not start new churches.

There were some small sects that quietly held to their believes, but they eventually died off. Sometimes it took centuries for certain heresies to die, but eventually they all do.