If the Protestant Reformation is justified...

[Callin]

I’ve seen several discussions between Catholics and Protestants on this board and others, but never one that focuses solely on this point, which I am sincerely looking for an answer.

If the Protestant Reformation is justified, then I don’t understand why the movement didn’t result in one new church, as opposed to several (even at its outset) which differ on interpretations and doctrines.

I’d really like this thread to focus solely on the above point, not be another everything-about-the-reformation debate thread.

If my understanding is correct, the premise behind the reformation is that the Catholic Church strayed from the things it should have been teaching, so rebelling against it was justified. But I don’t see how the Reformation solves this problem. Since multiple new churches were born and not just one, then those churches must also have strayed from something, since their conflicting beliefs cannot all be correct.

If there was only one new church created, then I would be far more likely to think the Reformation solved the problem it originally intended to fix.

Does this make sense? My question is, why didn’t the Reformation create a single new church instead of many different ones? And would you treat the Reformation differently if it had?

 

[BrianH]

I’ve seen several discussions between Catholics and Protestants on this board and others, but never one that focuses solely on this point, which I am sincerely looking for an answer.

If the Protestant Reformation is justified, then I don’t understand why the movement didn’t result in one new church, as opposed to several (even at its outset) which differ on interpretations and doctrines.

I’d really like this thread to focus solely on the above point, not be another everything-about-the-reformation debate thread.

If my understanding is correct, the premise behind the reformation is that the Catholic Church strayed from the things it should have been teaching, so rebelling against it was justified. But I don’t see how the Reformation solves this problem. Since multiple new churches were born and not just one, then those churches must also have strayed from something, since their conflicting beliefs cannot all be correct.

If there was only one new church created, then I would be far more likely to think the Reformation solved the problem it originally intended to fix.

Does this make sense? My question is, why didn’t the Reformation create a single new church instead of many different ones? And would you treat the Reformation differently if it had?

Broadly speaking:
There is a German Reformation, an English Reformation, and a Radical Reformation involving different people and different places. That is why.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

Remember that Luther didn’t intend to start a new church.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Does this make sense? My question is, why didn’t the Reformation create a single new church instead of many different ones? And would you treat the Reformation differently if it had?

I believe all those who are born from above (converted) are sinners in process, still struggling with the remaining flesh in us. In addition, the visible churches are always a mix of the sheep (converted) and the goats (unconverted who profess Christ). Goats can actually be in some sort of church authority or teaching role. Now, remember our enemy the devil is looking for someone to devour like a ravenous lion, especially in our churches. The good news is that false teaching and the struggling Christian life is all for our good, because God is sovereign. Because of our struggles as Christians, we seek God daily and yearn from the return of Christ. It is also a way to wean our affection from this world and look toward the Heavenly City. This is not our home brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Bluegoat]

Also, what Protestants mean by The Church is not what Catholics tend to mean. Catholics think of the One Church as being one unified political body. Many Protestants do not look at it that way, but would say the variety of groups you refer to, as well as the Catholic and Orthodox, are all parts of the “One Church”, all of which are slightly imperfect. They are perfected and unified by being in the Body of Christ. It is the Body of Christ that constitutes the Church, not a political structure.

You could compare it to the sense in which all Christians (or all Catholics if it is easier for you to imagine) are unified and made part of the Church, despite the fact that they all are imperfect in knowledge and practice. But through being incorporated into the Body of Christ they receive grace in this life, and are ultimately perfected and unified as organs in a body.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Luther may have broken the dam, but there was always more than one river flowing into the reservoir. That is the best analogy I can make. Different people had various ideas on church reform and once Luther did what he did, the ability to put those ideas out there was available.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Remember that Luther didn’t intend to start a new church.

He didn’t? what were his intentions than?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’ve seen several discussions between Catholics and Protestants on this board and others, but never one that focuses solely on this point, which I am sincerely looking for an answer.

If the Protestant Reformation is justified, then I don’t understand why the movement didn’t result in one new church, as opposed to several (even at its outset) which differ on interpretations and doctrines.

I’d really like this thread to focus solely on the above point, not be another everything-about-the-reformation debate thread.

If my understanding is correct, the premise behind the reformation is that the Catholic Church strayed from the things it should have been teaching, so rebelling against it was justified. But I don’t see how the Reformation solves this problem. Since multiple new churches were born and not just one, then those churches must also have strayed from something, since their conflicting beliefs cannot all be correct.

If there was only one new church created, then I would be far more likely to think the Reformation solved the problem it originally intended to fix.

Does this make sense? My question is, why didn’t the Reformation create a single new church instead of many different ones? And would you treat the Reformation differently if it had?

and who says it was justified?

 

[RedBert]

consider romans 14:
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

…

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

---

If I want to worship on one day and another wants to worship a different day… or
I don’t think you should eat that , but you think you should…

And if you feel really strong enough about that … then worship with people that share your beliefs.

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Interesting. -great minds think alike.

I just suggested a new thread under Apologetics on Church History just for this kind of thing.

 

[Callin]

Also, what Protestants mean by The Church is not what Catholics tend to mean. Catholics think of the One Church as being one unified political body. Many Protestants do not look at it that way, but would say the variety of groups you refer to, as well as the Catholic and Orthodox, are all parts of the “One Church”, all of which are slightly imperfect. They are perfected and unified by being in the Body of Christ. It is the Body of Christ that constitutes the Church, not a political structure.

You could compare it to the sense in which all Christians (or all Catholics if it is easier for you to imagine) are unified and made part of the Church, despite the fact that they all are imperfect in knowledge and practice. But through being incorporated into the Body of Christ they receive grace in this life, and are ultimately perfected and unified as organs in a body.

Cool, this is by far the closest answer to my question so far.

I understand that there are differences between what people consider to be “The Church” and all, but the end result of the Reformation is that several new “unified” or “political” bodies were created, even though you could say they are all under the same umbrella of The Church (even from a Catholic viewpoint, they would still be considered members of the Church, though imperfectly).

I guess I should rephrase (for everyone’s benefit):

Why did the Reformation result in more than one new political or unified body (denomination, I guess) instead of only one?

I ask because the fact that there’s more than one seems to undermine the supposed reasons for the Reformation - to end corruption, division, return to Christianity’s roots, etc. And that a single new denomination would have been a better solution.

I feel that if God really wanted the Reformation to occur, it would have spawned only one new denomination which would have been the best one possible, not several conflicting ones. If I am wrong to think this, I want to know why.

 

[wisdomseeker]

consider romans 14:
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

…

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

---

If I want to worship on one day and another wants to worship a different day… or
I don’t think you should eat that , but you think you should…

And if you feel really strong enough about that … then worship with people that share your beliefs.

based on this i would say that martin luther passed judgement on others.

 

[jwashu]

What Bluegoat said is correct for the most part but even that is beginning to fail.

Be they Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglicans etc… they were all Protestants who believed, as previously stated, that the Church / Body of Christ, was a mystical body rather than a physical one. As a former Protestant for most of my life I can attest to this.

Thus all “true” Christians are part of the Body, no matter their denomination. The problem comes about because the definition of “true” Christian is now up for grabs.

It wasn’t long after the Reformation that groups began to splinter off and decided that only they were the correct Chruch and everyone else, Protestant or not, was bound for Hell.

The Church of Christ is an example, formed in the early 1800s they believe they are the only True Church (don’t get me started on this… like God would just leave everyone hanging for 1800 years). The 7th Day Adventists etc…

Many Baptist / Fundamentalist / Evangelical groups (the name keeps changing) all adhere to a similar philosophy of interpreting the Bible that’s only about 200 years old and is completely different from every other Christian group - it’s called Dispensationalism. There are many errors in the document and even the mindset but I would guess that most American Protestants, even those in Chruches that do not believe this way but follow an interpretation similar to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, tend to believe this way. It usually includes OSAS and a very prominent role for the “physical” Jewish Church. Of course all of these Jews will burn in hell if they don’t become Christians but… it’s also interesting that it ignores a physical Church, even though the comparisons between John’s gospel and the OT are obvious, but promotes a physical Israel. Go figure… never mind that Christ said, “The Kingdom of God is at Hand” most of these individuals focus their attention to the rapture (another 200 year old creation) and a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on Earth. Again, never mind that Christ said “the Kingdom of God is at hand” 2000 years ago.

It is this group that seems to have the most disagreements with the rest of Christianity in regards to things because their interpretation of the Bible is completely different and often literalistic… not just literal.

My point is what while you will hear a lot of talk about the 1 mystical Body of Christ among Protestants, many of them in the more fundamentalist churchs feel that if you don’t pretty much agree with what they believe… you probably aren’t part of that body. And while they may preach OSAS, if you get “saved” then commit a major sin… well you probably didn’t “really” mean it the first time. “Well that guy probably really wasn’t saved to begin with…” I heard that often growing up. So they either go down front to make a “re-dedication” and all is good again. (it’s interesting how “re-dedication” is very close to confession but that’s another thread)

When I decided to become Presbyterian and leave the Baptist Church in HS due to doctrinal issues (among other things) many of them told my parents that most Presbyterians were “lost” ie. going to hell. While I didn’t become Catholic until 2 years ago, 20+ years later, I did take a friend to Mass in College my freshman and sophomore year… to which my parents were told “well that’s Catholic, you know Catholics are going to hell.”

Thus while it may be stated that there is this mystical body, the Protestants definitely can’t agree on what it takes to be a part of it.

The thing that is scary is that there are now Protestant churches popping up that are preaching that if you truly believe, you don’t even need the Bible… God will just tell you what to do. Is this the final result of the Solas? yea… I believe so. I like to scare them by telling them it’s the perfect setup for the Anti-christ and one World church, everyone can believe whatever they want. and they caused it… jokingly of course…

Joe

 

[Bluegoat]

C
I guess I should rephrase (for everyone’s benefit):

Why did the Reformation result in more than one new political or unified body (denomination, I guess) instead of only one?

I ask because the fact that there’s more than one seems to undermine the supposed reasons for the Reformation - to end corruption, division, return to Christianity’s roots, etc. And that a single new denomination would have been a better solution.

I feel that if God really wanted the Reformation to occur, it would have spawned only one new denomination which would have been the best one possible, not several conflicting ones. If I am wrong to think this, I want to know why.

I can think of a few points.

One is that I am not sure that the Reformers were thinking that they would end division among Christians, though all would have considered that a laudable goal. Luther, as a pp has pointed out, sought to reform corrupt practices in the Catholic Church, and it was only the complete failure in this task that convinced him that he would have to separate from them. Many of the other reformers saw a need to separate from the beginning, but I don’t think any thought that everyone would follow them.

And from this; there was not just one Reformation. There were several “protestant” movements at that time, which had different ideas. The Lutherans, Calvinists, English, and radical reformers all had different agendas, and did not spring one from another (although they influenced each other) but all came out of Catholicism in their own way.

Also, you seem to be assuming that there was real substantial unity before. This is not actually the case, the Eastern Church is the best known example, but there were in fact many other break away groups throughout the centuries. Some joined in again, some still exist, others have become extinct.

And, you are also thinking, (of course) like a Catholic; so it is like a circle where you see Catholicism as the centre, and the other groups as having moved to the edge of the circle. But perhaps it is useful instead to imagine that one of the other groups is at the centre, or none of them. Perhaps Catholicism itself moved from the centre, and Lutheranism, for example, was an attempt to move back. In that case, it was the movement of Catholicism that caused the multiplicity we see today.

An interesting thing to note is that this is how some Orthodox interpret the history. The Western Church began to make certain kinds of mistakes and innovations and broke from orthodoxy. THe natural and predictable outcome, which shows the failure of their project, is the Protestant Reformation. The Protestants in this view were rightly reacting to things like inappropriate claims of authority made by Rome, which had also led to the schism, but unfortunatly they had been influenced by other wrongheaded Western ideas.

Of course Protestants wouldn’t agree with that either, but I think it is just as compelling an argument as the one that says Protestantism must be wrong because it leads to such a multiplicity of views.

 

[Reuben_J]

Why did the Reformation result in more than one new political or unified body (denomination, I guess) instead of only one?

Because a dam is bursted and now there are many rivers flowing into the resrvoirs ?

 

[Justy90]

I’ve seen several discussions between Catholics and Protestants on this board and others, but never one that focuses solely on this point, which I am sincerely looking for an answer.

If the Protestant Reformation is justified, then I don’t understand why the movement didn’t result in one new church, as opposed to several (even at its outset) which differ on interpretations and doctrines.

I’d really like this thread to focus solely on the above point, not be another everything-about-the-reformation debate thread.

If my understanding is correct, the premise behind the reformation is that the Catholic Church strayed from the things it should have been teaching, so rebelling against it was justified. But I don’t see how the Reformation solves this problem. Since multiple new churches were born and not just one, then those churches must also have strayed from something, since their conflicting beliefs cannot all be correct.

If there was only one new church created, then I would be far more likely to think the Reformation solved the problem it originally intended to fix.

Does this make sense? My question is, why didn’t the Reformation create a single new church instead of many different ones? And would you treat the Reformation differently if it had?

I think that it’s a bit overzealous to look at the fact that Rome is united and everyone else isn’t when the truth is that many different beliefs upon many different issues are present amongst Catholic faithful just as they are amongst Protestants. The fact that Catholicism’s doctrines are set and other church’s are not is really irrelevant in light of this.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have been struggling with the question from the OP and the name of this thread for some time. I feel that the Catholic Church was indeed at its height of corruption, decadence, and full of rogue priests misrepresenting Church teaching right before the Reformation. I think that the Church did need reforming. And no, I don’t think Luther and his contemporaries were wrong to want to reform the Church.

But what I don’t think is justified is the notion that the Church that lasted 1,500 years (at that time) was somehow was misleading the poor, pitiful souls of Europe into hell for the better part of 1,000 years until Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Cranmer, and the gang came along. That notion is impossible to me. The Reformers didn’t just set out to get us back on focusing on grace and the importance of Scripture, they overthrew everything, the cliched “baby with the bathwater.”

Luther threw the Catholic notion of priesthood into the lake with his “priesthood of all believers,” Calvin and Zwingli did a bangup job trashing the Eucharist into a shallow experience of bread and grapejuice with either mere symbolism or a spiritual vague presence. Calvin gave us the idea that we have NO free will at all but are rather puppets with complete depravity. Luther told us we were dung covered in a wedding dress throwing concupiscence out the door. Sacraments dropped from seven to two. Should we baptize babies? NOPE. Is Jesus really presence in the Eucharist? Maybe? Should the Church even have a priesthood? Nope. Do sacraments work ex opere operato? Nope. Is Scripture the only way to know anything about God or theology? Yep. Mary and the saints? Nope. Faith alone or faith with works and a holistic theology? Sola fide.

This is what the Reformation, which some feel was more of a Deformation, did for Christendom. It brought about nation-states, new scientific inquiry, more freedom to pursue secular issues and secular exploration of ideas, it brought forth the freedoms that blossomed into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the U.S. But was it justified religiously? I don’t think so where I previously had argued the opposite position. I can’t justify chaos in the name of reform.