When was it, to a protestant, that all the ancient churches moved so far away from the truth as to necessitate the creation of new church orders based on confessions or councils?
Hi Ig,
I think that this is an extremely important question, but it is not at all surprising that your question has not drawn a Protestant response. Martin Luther had some very definite opinions about the Church, but like many other issues, his opinions changed over time.
**“Luther was never able to say with precision at just what moment the Catholic Church had fallen away from its divine calling. As he grew older, he would push the time of the church’s fall closer and closer to its beginnings, seeing, as one commenter has said, ‘the whole history of the church [seeming to be] under the influence of the devil.’ ** He was certain only that the history of the papal church demonstrated that the closer one came to his own times, the more corrupt the church had become. Yet the more corrupt the church was in his eyes, the higher his rhetoric could climb in his praise of the ‘true’ church, the living congregation of true believers doggedly persisting on God’s word and sustained by faith throughout the world. All this was a means of attacking the depravity of the papal church.
At Augsburg Cajatan had listened to Luther and in response had said, ‘That would mean that we must build a new church.’ Now Luther was forced to acknowledge the fatal truth of that observation, for he recognized that he must busy himself with the construction of a visible institution. He would have to build a ‘Lutheran’ church. Yet that was a contradiction to everything he had been seeking until now. No wonder that Jaraslov Pelikan has noted, ‘No trial oppressed Luther’s spirit more often in his later years that this recognition that structure was inevitable, combined as the recognition was with a candid awareness that the institutions now being erected were not necessarily superior to those which had (often against Luther’s advice) been swept away.” Marius, pg. 273
I would suggest that Luther never really could identify when the Church went off the rails because there is no conclusive evidence that it ever did. Certainly there have been abuses and problems in areas of practices since day one, but that does not automatically mean that the Church was teaching false doctrine.
We know that Christ commanded us to be of one belief, so it follows that He provided us with a means to achieve that doctrinal unity. Sola Scriptura does not fit the bill.
Over the years I have seen answers to your question ranging from right after Penecost, all the way up to the 15th century. Of course, there is no agreement on this issue among Protestants just like there is general disagreement on so much else. In general though I have noticed that the more ‘radical’ the doctrines, the earlier the Church went off the rails.
If we should view the Catholic Church as having ‘gone off the rails’, then how must we view Protestantism in general when judged by the same criteria. What about greater Lutheranism with its conflicting and competing communions that will not even share the Eucharist or the alter with each other? If we are supposed to see the Church as having gone off the rails, then which of the Protestant communions are we supposed to view as having not? Of course, the multiplicity of conflicting answers to this question, are in fact, a very compelling answer.
One of the basic questions is whether Christ sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church, meaning - did the Church ever teach God’s Absolute Truth? If the Church was actually precluded by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, at some point in time, then what was it, specifically and exactly that “happened” by which the Holy Spirit ceased (at some specific time) to lead the Church?
I would suggest that if the Church was ever led by the Holy Spirit to teach correctly, and then somehow, was not at some point in time, that period would be pretty easy to identify historically. It would seem that there would be a huge doctrinal dislocation. The Protestant Reformation IS that dislocation, but the Church continued to teach what it had always taught right through the Reformation.
Your question is one of many that are generally avoided, and for very good reason.
God Bless You Ig, Topper
