Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[GKC]

There are few, if any Waldensians left, they mostly went into Calvinism. The foundress of
Seventh Day Adventism claims they were early SDAs. But that is incorrect as are most of Ellen Whites ‘prophecies’. I think that the Hussites became part of the Anglican Church of England.

I don’t think so. The Moravians are their descendants, I think, but I never heard of them getting involved in Anglicanism.

Could be wrong.

GKC

 

[cmodrmac]

the Moravians in the USA are in full communion with ECUSA

I believe they were the Northern Methodists during the Civil war here

 

[spina1953]

I don’t think so. The Moravians are their descendants, I think, but I never heard of them getting involved in Anglicanism.

Could be wrong.

GKC

Hi GKC: I think that Ellen White of SDA were from the Millerites then left when his prophecies did not pan out.

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: I think that Ellen White of SDA were from the Millerites then left when his prophecies did not pan out.

That sounds right to me.

GKC

 

[GKC]

the Moravians in the USA are in full communion with ECUSA

I believe they were the Northern Methodists during the Civil war here

I meant the Hussites, in the sense of becoming part of the Church of England.

GKC

 

[cajunhillbilly]

The Maravian Brethren acceps the Luethran Confessions as their own if I am not mistaken. Will have to research that again.

 

[SyCarl]

Now, if you wanna say that, too, is “sola scriptura”, you may want to talk with the Calvinists about that, because John Calvin had no respect for the Church Fathers. And you bet modern Calvinists and other Protestants believe, often in contrast to the Fathers, that they, too, follow “sola scriptura”.

Now we’re both smarter than to say that what Calvinists believe, particularly about free will among other things, is Scriptural. But without the Church Fathers and common sense to back you up - it sure doesn’t back them up! - you’re kinda up the creek without a paddle, my friend.

I do not accept everything that Calvin taught but it is quite untrue that Calvin had no respect for the Church Fathers. The article you link to is about freewill and from my reading the early church had difficulties with predestination and free will. I think that this is shown even in Aquinas where he affirms predestination and then tries to preserve free will. Myslef I am quite ready to accept that God both predestine people and still allow free will. We may not be able to understand how but what is impossibel with man is possible for God.

However Augustine quoted from the early Church Fathers almost 1200 times in his Institutes. I would suggest that if you want to know his views on the matter that you read his actual writings rather than what someone else says about them…

 

[phil19034]

I do not accept everything that Calvin taught but it is quite untrue that Calvin had no respect for the Church Fathers. The article you link to is about freewill and from my reading the early church had difficulties with predestination and free will. I think that this is shown even in Aquinas where he affirms **predestination **and then tries to preserve free will. Myslef I am quite ready to accept that God both predestine people and still allow free will. We may not be able to understand how but what is impossibel with man is possible for God.

However Augustine quoted from the early Church Fathers almost 1200 times in his Institutes. I would suggest that if you want to know his views on the matter that you read his actual writings rather than what someone else says about them…

FYI - The Catholic Church believes that God predestines SOME people to Heaven but predestines NO ONE to hell.

The people God predestines are the Humans he uses to do his work, like The Blessed Virgin Mary and other saints which are known to Him.

 

[exnihilo]

There is neither time nor space to get into the kind of detail that I want, but what I recommend is that you look into what each of these groups were proposing, and ask yourself, “What form of Protestantism today is proposing this?”

Also, no one from any of these groups would have considered himself to be proposing a new religion; they saw themselves as Catholics.

Regarding the question you propose form my limited understanding I would have to agree that the modern forms of these religious movements are very different than when they started. In fact I think it would be fair to say that the ancient form of those Protestant movements had more in common with the Catholic church then with there modern day successors.

Regarding the final statement it seems to me they would have considered themselves Catholic in so far as they believed and taught they were the true religion. The early Protestant groups were as dogmatic as the Catholic church…

the Moravians in the USA are in full communion with ECUSA

I believe they were the Northern Methodists during the Civil war here

No, the Moravians are not and were not Methodists. Methodism came after the Moravian church. John Wesley was inspired to a renewed faith after witnessing the devotion of a group Moravians. For a while he associated with them but then went his own way and started Methodism from within the Anglican church.

I don’t think so. The Moravians are their descendants, I think, but I never heard of them getting involved in Anglicanism.

The Moravians are probably best considered as descendants of the Hussite movement mixed with Pietistic Lutheranism. Within the Hussite movement there were many different groups who were at odds with each other. Some groups considered the end of the world to be nigh. Ellen G. White may have connected SDA to these apocalyptic Hussites, but I’m not familiar with the specifics of her many works and claims.

The Moravians did get a decree from the British Parliament declaring them to be an ancient and true Church. I believe this was necessary to do missionary work in the British New World. They are indeed not related to Anglicanism other than having this recognition by the British government.

The Maravian Brethren acceps the Luethran Confessions as their own if I am not mistaken. Will have to research that again.

The Moravians do list the Augsburg Confession as an important document. From my understanding they don’t technically claim it to be binding or authoritative in any way. They similarly list the 39 Articles. The modern Moravian church seems to me to come more from Lutheranism, but also has, at least in England (where there are Moravian churches and settlements) and the US, some English (Anglican) influence. Their impetus was missionary work and they seem to be less concerned with specific doctrinal views but rather a kind of ‘mere Christianity’.

 

[andrewstx]

I meant the Hussites, in the sense of becoming part of the Church of England.

GKC

You are correct GKC. I got my ians and ites confused. Now that I think on it, I think maybe it was the Lollards that lived in England. But I know for certain that one of the groups we have been talking about were from England.

 

[TarkanAttila]

And yet the Lutheran tradition has regularly referred to what our Church practices as “sola scriptura”. that said, I appreciate you recognizing how we practice it. Thank you.

Jon

If that is what “sola scriptura” is, though, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call it “prima scriptura” (or however it would be in Latin) - that is, “scripture first”?

I get that “sola scriptura” is kind of like a “trademark” among Protestants. But to Luther it meant one thing, and to Calvin another. I don’t think Catholics would disagree with Luther’s understanding - if that was his (I know nothing about his views, only yours as modern Lutherans). But we both agree Calvin was wrong in dismissing Tradition altogether (except when it suited him).

So, then, what is the difference between Lutherans and Catholics on the “sola scriptura” position? I don’t think there is one - except where Lutherans become more like Calvinists.

Is that a picture of Rasputin on your profile?

Tom Baker playing Rasputin. But yes.

 

[GKC]

Regarding the question you propose form my limited understanding I would have to agree that the modern forms of these religious movements are very different than when they started. In fact I think it would be fair to say that the ancient form of those Protestant movements had more in common with the Catholic church then with there modern day successors.

Regarding the final statement it seems to me they would have considered themselves Catholic in so far as they believed and taught they were the true religion. The early Protestant groups were as dogmatic as the Catholic church…

No, the Moravians are not and were not Methodists. Methodism came after the Moravian church. John Wesley was inspired to a renewed faith after witnessing the devotion of a group Moravians. For a while he associated with them but then went his own way and started Methodism from within the Anglican church.

The Moravians are probably best considered as descendants of the Hussite movement mixed with Pietistic Lutheranism. Within the Hussite movement there were many different groups who were at odds with each other. Some groups considered the end of the world to be nigh. Ellen G. White may have connected SDA to these apocalyptic Hussites, but I’m not familiar with the specifics of her many works and claims.

The Moravians did get a decree from the British Parliament declaring them to be an ancient and true Church. I believe this was necessary to do missionary work in the British New World. They are indeed not related to Anglicanism other than having this recognition by the British government.

The Moravians do list the Augsburg Confession as an important document. From my understanding they don’t technically claim it to be binding or authoritative in any way. They similarly list the 39 Articles. The modern Moravian church seems to me to come more from Lutheranism, but also has, at least in England (where there are Moravian churches and settlements) and the US, some English (Anglican) influence. Their impetus was missionary work and they seem to be less concerned with specific doctrinal views but rather a kind of ‘mere Christianity’.

Again, my reference was to the Hussites *per se *becoming involved in the Church of England as I understood the original assertion. Not the Moravians.

GKC

 

[steido01]

If that is what “sola scriptura” is, though, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call it “prima scriptura” (or however it would be in Latin) - that is, “scripture first”?

In the literal sense, sure.

I get that “sola scriptura” is kind of like a “trademark” among Protestants. But to Luther it meant one thing, and to Calvin another.

And if Sola Scriptura is “Luther’s invention,” as it is so often characterized, then shouldn’t we use his definition? That the “sola” trademark was co-opted by non-Lutheran groups shouldn’t mean that Lutherans ought to abandon their historic terms. It means only that the masses need to be better educated.

I don’t think Catholics would disagree with Luther’s understanding

Possibly. Though certain few Catholics might grant the pope a higher position than even Scripture.

• if that was his (I know nothing about his views, only yours as modern Lutherans).

It was.

But we both agree Calvin was wrong in dismissing Tradition altogether (except when it suited him)

Aye.

So, then, what is the difference between Lutherans and Catholics on the “sola scriptura” position? I don’t think there is one

Not sure about Rome, but the Orthodox who were present for talks with Lutherans in Helsinki didn’t seem to think so, either. blogs.helsinki.fi/ristosaarinen/lutheran-orthodox-dialogue/

 

[JonNC]

=TarkanAttila;12358712]If that is what “sola scriptura” is, though, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call it “prima scriptura” (or however it would be in Latin) - that is, “scripture first”?

Don covered this pretty well, but the sola in sola scriptura is narrow and specific. It simply means scripture is the only final norm

I get that “sola scriptura” is kind of like a “trademark” among Protestants. But to Luther it meant one thing, and to Calvin another. I don’t think Catholics would disagree with Luther’s understanding - if that was his (I know nothing about his views, only yours as modern Lutherans). But we both agree Calvin was wrong in dismissing Tradition altogether (except when it suited him).

So, then, what is the difference between Lutherans and Catholics on the “sola scriptura” position? I don’t think there is one - except where Lutherans become more like Calvinists.

Catholics accept Tradition as an equal source of revelation, equal to scripture, if I’m not mistaken, where Lutherans see Tradition as a witness to scripture.

Jon

 

[HelenRose]

No one could believe in sola scriptura before the printing press, because the average person could not get his or her own copy of the Bible before the printing press and most could not read back then either. The only reason protestantism was able to flourish after Martin Luther was because of the printing press invention which allowed the mass production of the Bible which allowed people to believe the Bible was all they needed. How could people be protestant in earlier times and believe in sola scriptura when most could not get their own copy of the Bible to read for their self and most could not read? The genuine ones had no choice but to be a part of the Catholic church. But like someone said, heresies have been around since before Jesus died. People have to be able to have their own copy of the Bible and be able to read it in order to believe in sola scriptura which most people didn’t have till after the printing press and after Martin Luther. That’s why all Christians up till Martin Luther, needed the church to learn the word of God, they could not get their own Bible to read.

Skye, What is your understanding on how the books in the New Testament were decided and put together? Protestants and Catholic agree on the New Testament Books and we agree that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But somebody put the books together and declared that this was word of God. Unlike the Book of Mormon which was declared the word of God by Joseph Smith and the Koran which Mohamed declared was the word of God, the New Testament is a compilation of several writings by different authors over a period of time. Muslims accept Mohamed as the authority. Mormons accept Joseph Smith as their authority. Who do you accept as the authority?

 

[TarkanAttila]

And if Sola Scriptura is “Luther’s invention,” as it is so often characterized, then shouldn’t we use his definition? That the “sola” trademark was co-opted by non-Lutheran groups shouldn’t mean that Lutherans ought to abandon their historic terms. It means only that the masses need to be better educated.

Ok, I’ll grant that. But then what would Calvinists and the evangelicals call their position?

Possibly. Though certain few Catholics might grant the pope a higher position than even Scripture.

They might. However, I would say personally, as would the Church, that there are things Tradition talks about that Scripture does not - for example, the nature of Jesus (God, or man? One nature, or two?) - and there are things Tradition clarifies that are only vaguely pointed to or implied in Scripture - for example, the episcopacy.

Both are necessary to get the full picture. And from what I understand, Lutheranism is not far off the track from that.

Don covered this pretty well, but the sola in sola scriptura is narrow and specific. It simply means scripture is the only final norm.Catholics accept Tradition as an equal source of revelation, equal to scripture, if I’m not mistaken, where Lutherans see Tradition as a witness to scripture.

Jon

And largely I would agree. Largely I think the Church would agree. But I do think there are points on which Traditions elaborates where Scripture has “holes” - the nature of Christ, the episcopacy, etc, not to mention which books make up Holy Scripture.

 

[HelenRose]

Who do you believe was the first person or persons to declare that these writings were indeed the inspired word of God? And why were they believed by Christians?

 

[Memaw]

FYI - The Catholic Church believes that God predestines SOME people to Heaven but predestines NO ONE to hell.

The people God predestines are the Humans he uses to do his work, like The Blessed Virgin Mary and other saints which are known to Him.

The Catholic Church teaches that God desires everyone to go to Heaven, (Jesus died for all), but He gave us a Free Will so it is truly “up to us” if we do. Even the Blessed Mother who was conceived without original sin, had a free will. Adam and Eve did too. If you mean predestine gives them NO choice, then that’s not correct!. God Bless, Memaw

 

[phil19034]

The Catholic Church teaches that God desires everyone to go to Heaven, (Jesus died for all), but He gave us a Free Will so it is truly “up to us” if we do. Even the Blessed Mother who was conceived without original sin, had a free will. Adam and Eve did too. If you mean predestine gives them NO choice, then that’s not correct!. God Bless, Memaw

Tim Staples explains it much better than I do. They still have their will, still have a choice. But God predestines them to Heaven because He knows what they will do. So He selected them to be predestined and granted them special roles in salvation history and extra Graces/Charisma etc to do His will.

But no one is predestined for hell.

Anyway, Tim Staples explained it pretty good on a few episodes of Catholic Answers Live.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

It is a recognition and affirmation of some basic realities:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism—do not occur without human sin: (2089)

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (1271)

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276 Catechism of the Catholic Church

1. In order to qualify as a heretic, a person must have known and believed, ,then willfully rejected. Modern Protestants rarely meet this criteria. 2- Baptism is considered valid even when administered by a non-Christian, so it the Church must accept trinitarian baptism. 3) The Holy Spirit is clearly at work in these communities.

Again, that’s very generous of the RCC.

Were the protestant denominations “means of salvation” back in the 1500s as well?

1. In order to qualify as a heretic, a person must have known and believed, ,then willfully rejected. Modern Protestants rarely meet this criteria. 2- Baptism is considered valid even when administered by a non-Christian, so it the Church must accept trinitarian baptism. 3) The Holy Spirit is clearly at work in these communities.

I am a convert to and from the RCC. Does that make me a heretic?