Which Doctrines Do All Protestants Agree Upon?

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

The focus has appeared to minimize any of the Church’s share of responsibility and focus on Luther and his failings, and politics.

Your misrepresentation of what was posted.
Mt 28 19_20:

I have yet to see someone acknowledge the Church had a major role to play.

That’s because the Church did not play a major role. The Church had been weakened by the Crusades, the Plagues, and the corruption among some of Her clergy.

The numbers of educated clergy had been greatly reduced. The Church was under the impression that heresy could be dealt with as it had always been dealt with and no great harm would come to society. The Church did not clue into the changed circumstances until too late.

The Church was, in part, at fault. However, having said this, it was not the Church Herself who authored the major changes in warfare, economics, and social organization that resulted from the Renaissance. Those changes were the major causes of the Reformation. Those changes were…

POLITICAL.

Luther’s strategy, tactics, and alliances were…

POLITICAL.

It was by means of Luther’s POLITICAL preferenes that the harm ensued. If you had bothered to read the links I provided you would know this. But you chose not to read those links.
Mt 28 19_20:

Someone did go so far as to say that if the Church did error, it was in ordaining Luther too quickly.

I gather you are unaware of Luther’s ‘troubles’? I guess you didn’t read that part of the list I provided?
Mt 28 19_20:

I am Catholic, and wish Luther had not seperated, as much suffering for Catholics and Protestants has resulted from that.

It was the separation which was the root of the harm which ensued. And we have not even begun to post links to the eggregious and long-lasting harm which resulted from his ‘troubles.’ The separation of Luther was not theological. It was…

POLITICAL.

Now why am I expecting a ‘but’ to come after the concession you made above? Ah! I am wrong. It is only a ‘yet’.


Mt 28 19_20:

Yet, to say the Church’s major error was to ordain Luther to quickly, to me, that is insulting and embarrassing.

What part does reason and reference have to play in your quickness to be insulted and embarrassed? Please set out your understanding of the nature of Luther’s ‘troubles’.

If you do not know to what I am referring, then you could have asked when I posted my list directly after your first attempt to blacken the Church. But, instead of asking for information, you just jumped in, fingers pointing.



Luther had some ‘troubles’ that you should know about before commenting any further on the “Church’s error in ordaining Luther too quickly.”

Luther is not God!

Now back to the topic of the thread: let’s approach it this way. What doctrines did Luther dictate in the 16th C which all Protestants preserve in the 21st C?

 

[Teflon93]

Hey, I think Luther’s major mistake was seperating from the Church. He had some legitimate complaints from abusing and corruption in the Church. That is no reason to seperate.

That was his stated reason to separate, though, wasn’t it?

As far as breaking a bunch of nuns out of a convent, I haven’t read up on that. However, if they were well formed in their faith, and didn’t want to be out of the convent, couldn’t they have found a way? If one chose to marry him, and stay with him as she did, whose choice was that? Or is it all Luther’s fault?

It is a great sin to do what Luther did. What do you think happened to these nuns? Their families? This would be interesting reading, I think.

If Luther had remained Catholic, I don’t know if he would have made as many subsequent mistakes as he had. Alexander VI, however, remained Catholic, and probably did a lot of good things for the Church. He also behaved immorally, and it is a disgrace that a man with his history was elected Pope by the Cardinals trust with responsibility for safeguarding the Church.

Michael

Luther as a Catholic priest took the same Holy Orders as every other. He broke his solemn vows.

What do you make of Christ selecting a man with Saul’s history to be a great apostle?

 

[Teflon93]

So, the slaughter was one way, no Protestants slaughered by Catholic armies?

newadvent.org/cathen/07527b.htm
geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm?200729

Does it not matter which events happen first, and which later?

Does Luther bear no responsibility for the 100,000 slaughtered Gerrman peasants?

I have posted his words on the subject.

Does he bear responsibility?

Yes or no?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Stylite:

Yes, abuses and corruption among members of the Church played a large role as both a catalyst and opportunity during the reformation.

Abuses and corruption among members of the Church played a role. Not a large role. The sociological climate resulting from the Renaissance played a large role. As I have evidenced.

Stylite:

I don’t see the difficulty in saying this, since it’s true.

It is partly true.

Stylite:

That certain reformers may or may not have had political aspirations or used the unrest caused by these abuses to further their aims is irrelevant to the original point.

Please define ‘their aims.’ Thank you.

Stylite:

The exterior of the Church was in great need of cleansing and the counter-reformation came a bit too late.

True.

 

[Teflon93]

So, as I replied earlier, the corruption and abuses within the Catholic Church could probably be claimed as the spark that many, if not all, Protestant denominations have in common.

Michael

Not if they cannot agree on which abuses, and not if they practiced the same.

You spoke of indulgences to raise money for St Peter’s (not Patrick’s).

Do you think the Reformers who confiscated Church property and required forced conversion to their favored Protestant belief “reformed” this practice?

It would seem breaking the commandment “Thou shalt not steal” would be a bigger deal to Christians!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

Actually, from post #80, this is what you said: “Not looking up links is an inefficient use of time. Also looking up links which do not relate to the discussion at hand is also an inefficient use of time.”

Correct. Both are inefficient uses of our time.
Mt 28 19_20:

It appeared to me that you were suggesting that the links I looked up were not related to what you asked for evidence to support.

The links you provided were not related to what I asked you to support.
Mt 28 19_20:

This is another example why I see this as a waste of time.

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

More than once I have clarified with you that the Church had some fault in what happened. More than once! And yet every time you ignore what I have posted about the Church completely. Instead you build your case in defence of Luther by building a strawman against me and against the Church and by resorting to personal attack and misrepresentation.

Really, more than once you have clarified that the Church had some fault? Please tell me which post # s I can find your reply with such. If you are referring to
“History demonstrates that secular politics predominated in the Reformation and that the Reformers were up to their chins in secular politics. The difference is that the Church owned up and made corrections. Yall didn’t. And yall are still pointing your fingers everywhere but to your own founders.”

You aren’t calling that a clarification are you? Doesn’t even mention what was owned up to and corrected. Please give some examples.

Also, I am not defending Luther. I did say he had good reason to protest abuses and corruption in the Church. He also had many faults, and was in error to seperate from the Church. I also think God’s Church is holy, though men in office through the years have abused their positions, including around the time of the reformation. Pointing out Alexander VI and Savonarola does not take away from the true beauty of the the Church, however ignoring these men does not make the Church more beautiful than it was in their day, nor does it make their stories go away.

As far as you writing “Yall didn’t. And yall are still pointing your fingers everywhere but to your own founders.”
This is another reason this is such a waste of my time. I was born, raised, and continue to be Catholic. So take your “ya’ll” and point it somewhere else. And maybe instead of pointing at Luther and Protestants so much, take a better look at the history of our Church, and why some have left. Oh that’s right, it’s mostly politics, little to do with theology and indulgences.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

The links you provided were not related to what I asked you to support.

From your post #68 “And do you really think that “there are some who view” and “I think I read somewhere” qualify as evidence? Hint: no.”

The links I proved were related to this. The statements related to “there are some who view” and “I think I read somewhere” were related to Savonarola and a statue of him with Luther. The two links were indeed directly related to Savonarola and the statue.

Really now, are you going to continue this false witness? As demonstrated again, it’s not that difficult to go back and demonstrate clearly the false witness.

As far as name calling, your posts give me that impression that your are anti-Protestant. At least that’s what you words convey to me. That’s not name calling, just letting you know what impression you leave me with. Some people tell me they think I’m not Catholic since that’s the impression some come away with. So, that’s their impression, not like they called me a name. Now saying “Pot, meet kettle”, well now, who is stooping?

Michael

Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Really, more than once you have clarified that the Church had some fault? Please tell me which post # s I can find your reply with such. If you are referring to
“History demonstrates that secular politics predominated in the Reformation and that the Reformers were up to their chins in secular politics. The difference is that the Church owned up and made corrections. Yall didn’t. And yall are still pointing your fingers everywhere but to your own founders.”

You aren’t calling that a clarification are you? Doesn’t even mention what was owned up to and corrected. Please give some examples.

Also, I am not defending Luther. I did say he had good reason to protest abuses and corruption in the Church. He also had many faults, and was in error to seperate from the Church. I also think God’s Church is holy, though men in office through the years have abused their positions, including around the time of the reformation. Pointing out Alexander VI and Savonarola does not take away from the true beauty of the the Church, however ignoring these men does not make the Church more beautiful than it was in their day, nor does it make their stories go away.

As far as you writing “Yall didn’t. And yall are still pointing your fingers everywhere but to your own founders.”
This is another reason this is such a waste of my time. I was born, raised, and continue to be Catholic. So take your “ya’ll” and point it somewhere else. And maybe instead of pointing at Luther and Protestants so much, take a better look at the history of our Church, and why some have left. Oh that’s right, it’s mostly politics, little to do with theology and indulgences.

Michael

Well, if you call publicly calling the Pope the Anti-Christ, inciting the slaughter of 100,000 German peasants, enabling the sacking of Church property, and calling for a pogrom against German Jews “faults”, sure.

Given your conscience is so finely tuned when it comes to Alexander VI, why do you think it so imprecise when tuned to Martin Luther?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Do they say the Catholic Church is wrong, or that they disagree with parts of the Catholic Church’s teachings? Isn’t there one ironclad spark that ignited the Protestant Reformation? What were they protesting and reforming? Wasn’t it corruption and abuses within the Church? Even Friar Savanarola was hung in Florence… no corruption there. So, while not a doctrine, every Protestant church could problably claim Church abuses and corruption as the spark that led to their birth. Ever wonder if the Catholic Church does not have the major responsibility for the birth of the reformation?

As far as doctrine, I agree with others who mention the Creeds. From newadvent:
“We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

As a side note, interesting that the wording is “according to the Scriptures”, and not “according to tradition”.

Michael

Do most of the Protestant denominations cite the Apostle’s creed?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Precisely—we’re trying to get that definitive list to test that hypothesis.

The question could be alternately worded, “What UNIQUELY Protestant doctrines are held in common by all mainline Protestant denominations?”

We’re simply beginning with the second piece.

Is there a uniquely Protestant doctrine held in common? If not, and if most subcribe to the Apostle’s creed, then it would appear they not so much created new doctrines, as much as expel those they thought were contrary to God’s Word. In the mean time, what new dogmas have been defined by the Catholic Church since the reformation?

Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Is there a uniquely Protestant doctrine held in common? If not, and if most subcribe to the Apostle’s creed, then it would appear they not so much created new doctrines, as much as expel those they thought were contrary to God’s Word. In the mean time, what new dogmas have been defined by the Catholic Church since the reformation?

Michael

Good topic for another thread—we’re just trying to capture Protestant doctrines in this one.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Well, if you call publicly calling the Pope the Anti-Christ, inciting the slaughter of 100,000 German peasants, enabling the sacking of Church property, and calling for a pogrom against German Jews “faults”, sure.

Given your conscience is so finely tuned when it comes to Alexander VI, why do you think it so imprecise when tuned to Martin Luther?

As I stated recently “Also, I am not defending Luther. I did say he had good reason to protest abuses and corruption in the Church. He also had many faults, and was in error to seperate from the Church. I also think God’s Church is holy, though men in office through the years have abused their positions, including around the time of the reformation. Pointing out Alexander VI and Savonarola does not take away from the true beauty of the the Church, however ignoring these men does not make the Church more beautiful than it was in their day, nor does it make their stories go away.”

So, it is not so much that my conscience is playing favorites with one or the other. How about you, can you say the same, that your conscience is not more finely tuned when it comes to Martin Luther, and not so much when it comes to Alexander VI? How often do you consider the influence of Alexander VI in the origins of the reformation?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Good topic for another thread—we’re just trying to capture Protestant doctrines in this one.

O.K. lets rephrase that so we can keep the blinders on.

Is there a uniquely Protestant doctrine held in common? If not, and if most subcribe to the Apostle’s creed, then it would appear they not so much created new doctrines, as much as expel those they thought were contrary to God’s Word. Is there a uniquely Protestant doctrine? Faith alone and Scripture alone really are not unique in creating something new, just cuts off what they don’t agree with. Faith and Scripture are not unique to Protestants, as they are central to Catholicism.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

Really, I viewed it as a waste of time, given the posts I read in the other thread, and the wording of several of the replies I received.

I was not the one who namecalled on that thread. Nor did** I** descent to the level of ad hominem attack, strawman, misrepresentation, question-begging, and evasion.

The person who agrees with your point of view was the author of those excesses. And I see that you mirror his excesses.

I was not the one who namecalled on this thread. Nor did **I **descent to the level of ad hominem attack, strawman, misrepresentation, question-begging, and evasion. On this thread it was you who descended to that level.

Yet you have yet to offer any apologies for your excesses on this thread. Instead you continue your unilateral dismissals of other posters, claiming that any disagreement with your point of view is ‘wasting your time.’
Mt 28 19_20:

Several of the posts were insulting for me to receive, but I’m not going to complain or ask for an apology.

More than several of the posts were insulting for me to receive. And apologies were offered to us. However, no sooner were apologies offered, then the person apologizing resumed his excesses.
Mt 28 19_20:

If I don’t cower when you come at me with your replies, don’t be looking for an apology.

You have descended to the level of namecalling. That is unacceptable behaviour. You owe several of us an apology. It has nothing to do with cowering. It has everything to do with charity and courtesy.
Mt 28 19_20:

Standing up is not being uncharitable.

Standing up is setting out clear statements of your point of view with relevant evidence. Which you have not done.

Being uncharitable is namecalling. Which you have done.

“Luther is not God! His role in history is not above examination or criticism.” Very true, and Luther made some terrible mistakes with horrible consequences.

Is that not what I said?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

The Pope and Cardinals and priests at the time also are not God, and their role in history is not above examination or criticism either.

And NO ONE has suggested that the Pope and Cardinals are above examination and criticism. I have said this numerous times now. And you have ignored what I have said numerous times now. Why have you ignored what other posters have said? Please explain.

The fact that the Church was, in part, at fault does not detract in any way shape or form from Luther’s own failings.

What do you want us to do? Never say anything about Luther’s failings? That seems to be where you are going with this. I am curious as to how much you know about the extent of Luther’s failings.

Is the politically correct thing to do to ignore history and place the entire blame for the Reformation at the feet of a blackened Church? Who exactly does that serve? Jews? Peasants? Catholics? First Nations? Hint: none of the above.

Now folks might be very uncomfortable reading about the excesses of Luther and his friends. They may even be shocked and horrified to learn of things which has hitherto escaped the notice of CNN and the MSM. But being uncomfortable with learning does not justify dismissing history, ignoring history, and it does not justify dismissing or namecalling those who differ with you.

Luther is not God! He should not be placed on a pedestal above reproach.
Mt 28 19_20:

Though some Catholics don’t like to admit that.

More undefended innuendo. Please state who does not like to admit that and evidence your statement. Or retract the accusation. Thank you.
Mt 28 19_20:

The role of examination should never be to think any of us are any better, or less sinful, but to learn and build up the body of Christ.

And ignoring historical evidence, ignoring Luther’s failings builds up the Body of Christ how exactly?
Mt 28 19_20:

This was true then and is true now. If people leave the Catholic Church, often it is partly our weaknesses and failings that contribute to that direction.

Please speak for yourself. Have you left the Church? If so, then what were your reasons?
Mt 28 19_20:

So, as I replied earlier, the corruption and abuses within the Catholic Church could probably be claimed as the spark that many, if not all, Protestant denominations have in common.

So, as I replied to your reply earlier, you have not demonstrated this. Saying that something ‘could probably be claimed’ is not demonstrating it. Your claim lacks evidence.

Moreover you are tautologizing this claim. Perhaps if you say this often enough, for you, it will be true? Sorry to once again be the bearer of bad news, but for the rest of us, tautology is not how reason and reference work.

Back to the thread: Which of Luther’s doctrines have been preserved in common among all Protestants? Or Calvin, for that matter. Or any of the others. Which doctrines do all protestants agree upon?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Do most of the Protestant denominations cite the Apostle’s creed?

Michael

No, quite a few Protestant denominations are violently opposed to the idea of Creeds in the first place. They think they’re extra-Biblical. Lots of them would refuse to say, “He descended into Hell.” Among credal churches, I’ve found that most Lutherans say “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Christian Church…” I attended an ELCA Lutheran church and they said “catholic” but it had an asterisk and the footnote read, “catholic means universal, not Roman Catholic.”

 

[ALLFORHIM]

So All the Protestants believe that baptism forgives sins?

From the Nicene Creed:
" We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

Actually we would probably all agree that this is referring to the baptism of the HS and not water baptism.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

No Baptist I know (and I know a LOT of Baptists) would ever say that “Jesus…descended into Hell” nor would they “acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin” so the Creeds are out. Sorry.

Well I wonder what the baptists here say. I use to attend a baptist church and they certainly did believe Jesus descended into hell and that baptism of the HS is what saves us not water baptism.

Maybe Allischlamers will show up

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually we would probably all agree that this is referring to the baptism of the HS and not water baptism.

When you are baptized of Water, you are receiving the Holy Spirit, in Catholic theology.

CCC 1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord’s will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.