Protestant disagreements with their founders.

[Angainor]

This is from [post=1023545]another thread[/post]. It was pointed that Martin Luther belived in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I, as a Lutheran, said I disagreed with Martin Luther.

MariaG:

This is where Catholics and Protestants have the most “I don’t get it”.

You see nothing wrong with disagreeing with a doctrine espoused by the man who founded your denomination. God using fallible humans to bring about change.

God has been using fallible humans to bring about change since the earliest OT times.

I do see nothing wrong with disagreeing with Martin Luther. If I were to go back in time and meet him, I would do nothing to try to persuade him out of his belief in the perpetual virginity: Romans 14:1

MariaG:

Catholics see everything wrong in a false doctrine being espoused by a church. We have recorded in the Bible that the “Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth”. To have a church espouse a false doctrine is unacceptable.

One man is not the Church. Martin Luther is not the Church. I don’t see why you would be at all not be able to get why it is so easy for me to disagree with the individual named Luther.

MariaG:

But this perhaps is the most striking difference, Catholic Christians believe God is strong enough to lead a whole Church, but Non-Catholic Christians seem to believe He is only capable of leading an individual to all truth on a personal level.

It is truly weird to hear you say that. What you say about Non-Catholics is what I think about Catholics. Is God only cabable of leading an individual to all truth (i.e. Pope)? Is not God not strong enough to lead Christ’s whole Church to the truth?

 

[MariaG]

posted by Angainor

It is truly weird to hear you say that. What you say about Non-Catholics is what I think about Catholics. Is God only cabable of leading an individual to all truth (i.e. Pope)? Is not God not strong enough to lead Christ’s whole Church to the truth?

The Holy Spirit is capable and does lead individual people if they are listening. But what happens when one person thinks God is leading yet another says no? How does a person know who is right? What if both can point to Scripture to support their view, whose interpretation is right?

So how do we know? We know because we believe as recorded in Scripture that the Church, a living breathing group, had structure and leaders (also as recorded in Scripture). So when Scripture says “take it to the Church” this isn’t just a invisible body of believers, that this is a visible source and structure we can look to.

Otherwise how can Scripture that says the church is the Pillar and foundation of truth be true? Which denomination? There are not many truths, but one. And although whether or not Mary is not an “essential truth” what about Baptism? Lutherans believe like Catholics. Baptists don’t. So who is right? Which Church teaches the truth. One truth? Where?

This is why we believe that God is capable of leading an entire Church, all of its doctrine, to all truth.

For a Catholic Christian, it is a package deal. While I believe God can lead me personally to truth, I also acknowledge that I can be misled. But I do not have to worry because I can look to the Church to find out what truth is. Not because the Pope is special, but because God promised that the Church, the visable Church Jesus established while on earth, would never fail and be the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[arieh0310]

Angainor:

Is God only cabable of leading an individual to all truth (i.e. Pope)? Is not God not strong enough to lead Christ’s whole Church to the truth?

The pope doesn’t keep the truth to himself. You think that Protestantism is a testament to the HS leading the church in all truth? Protestants disagree with each other about everthing (baptism, real presence, salvation, Trinity, etc) and not just on minor issues.

 

[Milliardo]

Angainor:

I do see nothing wrong with disagreeing with Martin Luther.

Jesus was very big in unity. He did say that if two or three are in agreement and gather in His name, then He will be with them. St. Cyprian of Carthage in his treatise, “The Unity of the Catholic Church”, pointed this out very well. People often forget the part about being in agreement and just focus on the gathering part; St. Cyprian said that the part about being in agreement must not be ignored, or else there is really no unity, and Christ would not be with them. This is the tragedy (among many other tragedies) of Protestantism: people would gather as a congregation, but can have many disagreements. So is Christ with them? St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Ephesians: “It is proper for you to act in agreement with the mind of the bishop…by your unity taking your keynote from God, you may with one voice through Jesus Christ sing a song to the Father”. So if you disagree with your founder (Luther), can you still consider yourself Lutheran?

Is God only cabable of leading an individual to all truth (i.e. Pope)? Is not God not strong enough to lead Christ’s whole Church to the truth?

As pointed out, the Pope leads all men to the truth; he does not keep the truth to himself. So yes, God is strong enough that He leads his Church to the truth.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Angainor:

What you say about Non-Catholics is what I think about Catholics. Is God only cabable of leading an individual to all truth (i.e. Pope)? Is not God not strong enough to lead Christ’s whole Church to the truth?

1. The HS doesn’t lead just one man to protect the Church, but one man is protected from err when making ex-cathedra statements (when he is speaking for the whole Church and tells everyone he is doing so) and only when it is in a matter of faith and morals.
2. If you protestants believe that every individual can make up their mind about the Gospel, then why is there even different synods within Lutheranism, let alone other protestant sects such as Oneness Only Pentecostals who deny (to a degree) the divinity of Jesus? Then there’s Anglicans, Methodists, Church of Christ, Nazarene, “Non-Denominational”, etc. etc. etc.

How can that be the Holy Spirit guiding all of those people when their beliefs are so far off from what 1st Century Christians believed? God is not the author of confusion.

 

[jesusluv]

Why would you affiliate yourself with something you don’t believe all of? If you disagree with Luther, you can’t be a Lutheran, you just have the name. Same goes for Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Angainor:

I do see nothing wrong with disagreeing with Martin Luther…

Hello Angainor;

Lets start with Romans 13:

[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
[2] Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
[4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
[5] Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. (Rom 13:1-5.)

Then, in Chapter 14 of Romans, the text exhorts us to not argue with our brothers and sisters over certain customs and practices, but this is not the same thing as allowing one to continue in wrong doctrine. Note that the issues raised in Chapter 14 are not doctrines. At issue are only certain disciplines and practices, for which the faithfull are cautioned not to judge each other:

[1] As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions [not “teachings” or “doctrine” or “scripture interpretation”].
[2] One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables [a discipline].
[3] Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him.
[4] Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand.
[5] One man esteems one day as better than another [discipline or practice], while another man esteems all days alike [discipline or practice]. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind.
[6] He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord *. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord [again - unity of doctrine expressed in different practices], since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
[7] None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. (Rom 14:1-7)*The bible makes clear that we are to correct wrong doctrine, but to do so with charity and love for our brothers, without judging and condemnation: 1 Pet 3:15 (“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;”) Rom 14:1-7 does not contradict this teaching. It merely warns us against judging our brothers and sisters in Christ because of their outward practices - It Romans 14 does not expressly speak about doctrine.

Again, the issue that was raised so well by MariaG in the prior thread is how unstable the base of the Protestant faith - *sola scriptura * - appears to Catholics. Our concerns are justified when it seems perfectly fine for one protestant to jetison the doctrines espoused by his or her own denominational founder upon the authority of one’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. Is no weight to be accorded to Martin Luther’s consideration of the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual virginity by the “bible-believing” christian of the 21st century because the doctrine is not the spiritual “flavor of the month?” What if the majority of Lutherans decided to hold to Martin Luther’s belief? Would that cause the dissenting minority to humbly rethink their position, or would there be another reformation into yet another denomination?

MariaG’s point is well taken. Individual authority leads to subjective truth - as manifested in thousands of different ‘reformed’ churches. There is no objective basis for determining truth in protestant doctrine. There is no final arbiter (Mt. 18:17-18), … no piller and bullwork of truth. (1 Tm 3:15.) The church is simply a collection of people who hold similar personal scriptural interpretations, and it is as narrow or as vast as one chooses to make it, based upon how narrowly or how vastly one defines his or her doctrines. In short, protestantism is merely refined subjectivism. There may be some objective truth to be found among subjective interpretations, and there may also be many well intentioned individuals who are honestly seeking God, but there is no unity, no universality, and no authority - all of which are established marks of the true Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[Angainor]

Hello Robert, very thoughtful post.
Robert in SD:

Hello Angainor;

Lets start with Romans 13:1-4

I always thought Rom 13:1-5 was talking about secular governments, a give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s kind of thing. Paul goes on to talk about taxes in verse 6.
Robert in SD:

Then, in Chapter 14 of Romans, the text exhorts us to not argue with our brothers and sisters over certain customs and practices, but this is not the same thing as allowing one to continue in wrong doctrine. Note that the issues raised in Chapter 14 are not doctrines. At issue are only certain disciplines and practices, for which the faithfull are cautioned not to judge each other:The bible makes clear that we are to correct wrong doctrine, but to do so with charity and love for our brothers, without judging and condemnation: 1 Pet 3:15 (“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;”)

I agree. The position of the LCMS is to take no postion. “Scripture is not clear on this matter, and Lutherans do not regard it as a theological issue.”
Robert in SD:

Again, the issue that was raised so well by MariaG in the prior thread is how unstable the base of the Protestant faith…

I can see how you, as a Catholic looking out over a sea of Protestanism can see only rough waters, it appears “unstable”. What are appearances? Can the Holy Spirit not guide the rough waters of Protestantism? Does the unstable appearance really seem out of place from scripture? We are told to stay on our guard. We are told to “test everything”. We are told being a Christian is not easy.

Who said there would be a final human arbiter on truth? Who said the Church Paul mentions in 1 Tim 3:15 would be a human being you could go to and ask for the truth? Is the Church incarnated into the person of the Pope? The Church is the foundation of the truth. The truth of the Gospel has survived 2000 years, so I know the Church is doing its job.

As to the charge of subjectivism, true Christian Protestants seek objective truth with the tools God gave them. True Christian Protestants recognize the existance of an objective truth, and hope their undertanding of that truth is correct.

 

[jesusluv]

Angainor:

I can see how you, as a Catholic looking out over a sea of Protestanism can see only rough waters, it appears “unstable”. What are appearances? Can the Holy Spirit not guide the rough waters of Protestantism? Does the unstable appearance really seem out of place from scripture? We are told to stay on our guard. We are told to “test everything”. We are told being a Christian is not easy.

Who said there would be a final human arbiter on truth? Who said the Church Paul mentions in 1 Tim 3:15 would be a human being you could go to and ask for the truth? Is the Church incarnated into the person of the Pope? The Church is the foundation of the truth. The truth of the Gospel has survived 2000 years, so I know the Church is doing its job.

We don’t see rough waters my friend, just thousands of puddles, a few ponds, and even fewer lakes. The puddles being churches started by any man/woman that decides to make a church, ponds being those who split from the original Protestants, and lakes being those originals. No rough waters, it’s just the fish don’t get along with each other, lol.

No one said there would be a final human arbiter on truth. Paul says the church would be the foundation of truth as you stated above. Which church was he talking about? There was only one for 1000 years before the first schism, then two until the reformation. The pope doesn’t “rule” the church like a lot of people think. Not everything he says is gospel, he is a mere human like yourself. He is only infallible in certain instances and still sins like the rest of us.

 

[Angainor]

jesusluv:

We don’t see rough waters my friend, just thousands of puddles, a few ponds, and even fewer lakes.

Why stop the division there? In reality we are talking about numerous individual drops of water each representing one isolated soul possessing all that that soul truely believes deep down, if they were honest with themsleves. Together those drops make the Church.

jesusluv:

Paul says the church would be the foundation of truth as you stated above. Which church was he talking about? There was only one for 1000 years before the first schism, then two until the reformation…

I’ll have to disagree with you there. How can there be more than one Church? There is only one, there was only one, and there will always be only one Church.

 

[Milliardo]

Angainor:

Why stop the division there? In reality we are talking about numerous individual drops of water each representing one isolated soul possessing all that that soul truely believes deep down, if they were honest with themsleves. Together those drops make the Church.

Do different, dissenting voices make a Church? No. Jesus is clear that there must first be an agreement amongst themselves. If there’s an agreement and they gather in His name, then He is with them. Dissenting voices gathered make up a crowd, but never a Church.

How can there be more than one Church?

Protestantism gave us ample evidence that there can be more than one Church.

There is only one, there was only one, and there will always be only one Church.

True enough–there is only the Catholic Church. Protestants are labeled by some to be actually rebel Catholics, which makes perfect sense.

 

[jesusluv]

Angainor:

I’ll have to disagree with you there. How can there be more than one Church? There is only one, there was only one, and there will always be only one Church.

My wording was wrong. Technically it was still one church even when the schism happened between the east and west, because the church still accepts the eastern orthodox as having valid holy orders, etc.

Also, yes, today there is still only the one church that was set up by the apostles, through Jesus, which is the RCC. But, just as Milliardo said, there are very many “churches” today. They all claim to know the truth, but one churches truth doesn’t agree with anothers. When I ask about that fact, all I get is “we agree on the important parts”. I need to know what the non-important parts are personally.

 

[Mystophilus]

Angainor:

This is from [post=1023545]another thread[/post]. It was pointed that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I, as a Lutheran, said I disagreed with Martin Luther.

God has been using fallible humans to bring about change since the earliest OT times.

I do see nothing wrong with disagreeing with Martin Luther. If I were to go back in time and meet him, I would do nothing to try to persuade him out of his belief in the perpetual virginity: Romans 14:1One man is not the Church. Martin Luther is not the Church. I don’t see why you would be at all not be able to get why it is so easy for me to disagree with the individual named Luther.It is truly weird to hear you say that. What you say about Non-Catholics is what I think about Catholics. Is God only cabable of leading an individual to all truth (i.e. Pope)? Is not God not strong enough to lead Christ’s whole Church to the truth?

While Protestantism was founded in an ardent desire to locate the One Truth of God, it was also founded in schism, which means that everyone who has a Protestant heritage has the Customary Right to disagree with whomsoever they choose, most certainly including the leaders of any church.

Dissent is our birthright.

 

[AquinasXVI]

I know I would refrain from calling myself Catholic if I didn’t believe in Catholicism. I cannot reconcile Angianor’s arguement that he can call himself Lutheran and not believe in Luther’s ideas. Sorry Angianor, that just doesn’t make any sense.

in XT.

 

[jesusluv]

Mystophilus:

While Protestantism was founded in an ardent desire to locate the One Truth of God, it was also founded in schism, which means that everyone who has a Protestant heritage has the Customary Right to disagree with whomsoever they choose, most certainly including the leaders of any church.

Dissent is our birthright.

That is all well and good and I know you meant that lightheartedly by the smiley at the end, but on a serious note, does it not make it good for us as Christians, who are supposed to show unity since our Saviour asked for that, to disagree because we can?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Dissent is our birthright.

Dissent is what Christ preached against-He prayed that we may all be One, not that we may all agree to disagree and call it good.

As to Lutheranism, if you disagree with Luther’s theology then how can you be Lutheran, except just by arbitrary label that you give to yourself? Some folks call themselves “Catholics” but certainly aren’t if they are not in union with Rome. I’m sure Luther would have something to say about that, he didn’t like Calvin and other “reformers” disagreeing with him and wrote against them all as heretics.

It is kind of like the “cafeteria” Catholics, if they disregard one tenent of the Catholic Church (say birthcontrol), they just made their own little “catechism” by saying they’re “Catholic” but they’ll only follow what they pick and choose out of the teachings of the True Church. They set themselves up as their own little pope, with their own little catechism, in their own little church and if they can do it, why can’t everybody else? Then anything goes, all of the disciplines, doctrines, and dogmas are up for the taking or leaving. Nothing is definate, nothing can be authoritatively defined as Truth, if everyone is their own pope, their own magisterium and their own interpreter of Holy Scriptures. That is not what Christ had in mind.

It IS that way in Protestantism. If you don’t agree with Luther on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary then who’s to say that he isn’t wrong in other things-such as the authority of the Pope, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fides, etc. etc. ad naseum? If he is wrong about the Church, then the very basis for Protestantism falls in on itself. Luther realized this, he knew he basically stuck his foot in his mouth when he taught we didn’t need the Church to tell us what to believe: then logically Calvin didn’t need Luther to tell him what to believe, Servetus didn’t need Calvin, Henry VIII didn’t need any of the above, and on down the line. How can any sect dare to say they are right when their very basis is Sola Scriptura but everyone is just as capable as the next to interpret Scripture? How can a Lutheran of the Missouri Synod dare to say that the ECLA does’t have it quite right? Or how can Evangelicals say that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong-they study the Bible too and say that the Spirit is leading them to the truth.

The Holy Spirit leads us to all Truth, but that isn’t (and hasn’t) happened in Protestantism-it is error that begat error that continues to spawn error.

 

[cheddarsox]

The Catholic church points to various people, Luther, Calvin, etc. as the founder of protestant churches, but most protestants consider Christ the founder of their church, therefore, it is of more importance to follow Christ than man.

cheddar

 

[Tonks40]

Angainor:

As to the charge of subjectivism, true Christian Protestants seek objective truth with the tools God gave them. True Christian Protestants recognize the existance of an objective truth, and hope their undertanding of that truth is correct.

This statement struck me as interesting. I would think that the true Christian protestant, doing everything in his power to live by the Word of God, would at least like to be certain that their understanding of the truth is correct.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

but most protestants consider Christ the founder of their church, therefore, it is of more importance to follow Christ than man.

That is nice, but is it true? Is Protestantism really what Jesus Christ wanted? Was the “Reformation” really following Christ?

Matthew 7:21-27

21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’
24"Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."

 

[MariaG]

cheddarsox:

The Catholic church points to various people, Luther, Calvin, etc. as the founder of protestant churches, but most protestants consider Christ the founder of their church, therefore, it is of more importance to follow Christ than man.

cheddar

But this is exactly the point. People claim to follow Christ, be led by the Holy Spirit, but they disagree on what the truth is. It is not possible for everyone to be led completely by the Holy Spirit and come up with conflicting truth.

Notice I said completely. I say this because I do not doubt many Protestants are led by the Holy Spirit. Thier lives can be filled with personal testimony on what God has done for them. The Holy Spirit leading them.

But this does not mean that everytime they pick up a Bible they completely understand the message the Holy Spirit was trying to lead them to.

This is the problem I have, the inability to acknowledge that a believer can be misled, even though the same bible is filled with warnings of it! And tells us to “look to the Church” “Stand fast with all you have learned, whether*** oral or*** by letter”. The very Scripture people look to, tells us not everything was written down, but listen to what we told you, and take disputes to the Church.

Or conversely, those who admit they can be wrong but don’t see a problem with never having a black and white answer on what Jesus reallly meant. Over some pretty significant things:

Real Presence
Baptism

These two being the most significant, and not being just “details” that are unimportant. How can what is written be sufficient when what is written can not be agreed upon?

How can we truly follow Christ if you can’t even know for sure what He meant when He said “This is my Body”?

Oh wait, the answer then is, I know because the Holy Spirit leds and guides me. I’ll stand fast on the promises of the Bible but ignore it admonishings. (I guess this is like a former smoker who cannot stand the same smoke they used to fill the air with.)

A former Bible Alone follower of Christ,
Maria