Will Protestantism divide until it fails ultimately?

[Aefensang]

To the O.P. :

I believe infamous figure of 33 000 denominations stood for Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, non-denominational, and other Christian sects across the whole world.

Secondly, if a Protestant community is responsible for people who leave it to form their own community, then is the Roman Church responsible for the Protestants having left Rome? Do you see the logic? Calling Anglicanism schismatic because the Puritans left the Church of England, for example, would force you to call Roman Catholicism schismatic because the Anglicans left the Church of Rome. Responsibility for schism is with those who make the decision to leave.

 

[joe370]

To the O.P. :

I believe infamous figure of 33 000 denominations stood for Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, non-denominational, and other Christian sects across the whole world.

Secondly, if a Protestant community is responsible for people who leave it to form their own community, then is the Roman Church responsible for the Protestants having left Rome? Do you see the logic? Calling Anglicanism schismatic because the Puritans left the Church of England, for example, would force you to call Roman Catholicism schismatic because the Anglicans left the Church of Rome. Responsibility for schism is with those who make the decision to leave.

Jesus said, I will build my church (not churches). Of those 33000 churches, where can that one church be found in the world today? As a former protestant I had to rule out all of the protestant churches for the simple fact that I could provide the name of the man that founded each and every protestant church, and when, and his name was not Jesus. The Anglican church began with Henry the VIII so, for me, that ruled that church out. I am wrong about the Anglican church? Can the Anglican church trace its lineage all the way back to Jesus? That leaves us with the eastern churches and the catholic church, including the 23 rites in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Aefensang]

Jesus said, I will build my church (not churches). Of those 33000 churches, where can that one church be found in the world today? As a former protestant I had to rule out all of the protestant churches for the simple fact that I could provide the name of the man that founded each and every protestant church, and when, and his name was not Jesus. The Anglican church began with Henry the VIII so, for me, that ruled that church out. I am wrong about the Anglican church? Can the Anglican church trace its lineage all the way back to Jesus? That leaves us with the eastern churches and the catholic church, including the 23 rites in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The Lord Jesus founded His Church on Pentecost, and continues to build it. As many Fathers declare, the rock upon which the Church was founded is the faith confessed by Peter. Faith, being spiritual, ebbs and flows depending upon the epoch and on the men in question. Since it is a spiritual rock, anyone who builds upon it is building upon the true foundation. I do not pretend to know the Church inside and out, but I believe Christ directs as He directs.

Being an Anglican, I do have faith that the Apostolic lineage has been preserved in Anglicanism as well as in Rome and in the East. There is no proof that any Roman bishop today is valid beyond Cardinal Rebiba, just as there is no proof that Rowan Williams descends from any of the Apostles. You may provide a list of the Popes back to Peter, but it is not as if each Pope was consecrated by the previous Pope. It’d be impossible, in fact, given that a Pope has to die before his see can be filled. There’s no record of who consecrated which Bishop of Rome, nor any bishop.

The Church of England has existed since time immemorial. It was founded only God-knows-when. It was strengthened and increased by Patrick. It was reformed by Augustine of Canterbury in 604. It was depopulated and repopulated by William in 1066. It was reformed in 1534.

There’s a famous bit of cheek about this question. You ask: “Where was your Church before 1533?” I answer “Where was your face before you washed it this morning?”

 

[pablope]

To the O.P. :

I believe infamous figure of 33 000 denominations stood for Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, non-denominational, and other Christian sects across the whole world.

 

[pablope]

It was reformed in 1534.

 

[Aefensang]

I think you need to study what a denomination is…something had to come from somewhere…to denominate.

This is not about your definition or my definition. The 33 000 number comes from the World Christian Encyclopedia, which Steve Ray sourced when he started to spread this argument.

“A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world”
Barrett, Kurian, Johnson - Oxford University Press, 2001 (2nd edition)

Page 10:

In 2001, GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY had
26,350 33,820 denominations/paradenominations
with
1,391,020 3,445,000 congregations/churches
composed of
1,130 1,888 million affiliated Christians
dichotomized into the 2 global categories below

Page 16:

781 “Orthodox” denominations, predicting 887 for 2025.
242 “Roman Catholic” denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.

It apparently used disparate sources from 1970-2000. Hard to trust.

Anyway, after all that I’d say a true Anglican would question the fidelity of non-denominational people. Anglicanism has historically guarded very strongly against schism in its ranks. Once having ‘cleansed’ itself of Romanism, as they put it back then, the CofE was able to take stock and defend the unity of the local church - against assumption by a larger national body, and against falling apart into smaller bodies.

I am no Protestant, and do not condone endless schisms.

No…the Reformers were responsible for their own actions. Just as Henry VIII was responsible for breaking off with Rome.

The Anglican contention is that Henry VIII somewhat restored the ancient liberty of the English Church as a national Christian body, which it had enjoyed before the invasion and changes of 1066. This is about history, not about what Rome says or what Canterbury says.

Have you heard of Catherine of Sienna? She was a Church reformer prior to Luther. She reformed the Church during her time…including the Papacy…without the need to split from or to cause a split in the Church.

I think Luther would reply by saying that it was Rome which made the split - from the ancient Church and its doctrines, etc.

So let me ask…what makes Luther and his friends better reformers than Catherine of Sienna that they saw a need to split from Rome?

Catherine of Siena, being from Italy, was well within her rights to help reform the Roman Church, which historically had jurisdiction over at least central Italy. Luther set out to reform the German Church, because that was his homeland. He worked exclusively in Germany, after all. Not sure how far Catherine operated, but since she assumed the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, I’m sure she probably went to Avignon as well as Rome?

Catherine did not go far enough, that’d be our claim.

By disobedience of Henry VIII? Do you know what the bible says of disobedience?

To your question and your Bible quote, an old-fashioned evangelical Anglican would simply say that it’s Rome’s word against Henry’s. Rome would call Henry a schismatic for leaving the Universal Church; Henry, in his better moments, would say that Rome rebelled and was disobedient against the ancient faith by her insistence on controlling national churches.

Of course, Henry isn’t our Pope. He believed in and enforced Transubstantiation (genuflection), prayer to the saints, prayer for the dead, and many other things. He was more a Roman Catholic than anything recognisable as a Protestant Anglican.

 

[GKC]

This is not about your definition or my definition. The 33 000 number comes from the World Christian Encyclopedia, which Steve Ray sourced when he started to spread this argument.

“A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world”
Barrett, Kurian, Johnson - Oxford University Press, 2001 (2nd edition)

It apparently used disparate sources from 1970-2000. Hard to trust.

Anyway, after all that I’d say a true Anglican would question the fidelity of non-denominational people. Anglicanism has historically guarded very strongly against schism in its ranks. Once having ‘cleansed’ itself of Romanism, as they put it back then, the CofE was able to take stock and defend the unity of the local church - against assumption by a larger national body, and against falling apart into smaller bodies.

I am no Protestant, and do not condone endless schisms.

The Anglican contention is that Henry VIII somewhat restored the ancient liberty of the English Church as a national Christian body, which it had enjoyed before the invasion and changes of 1066. This is about history, not about what Rome says or what Canterbury says.

I think Luther would reply by saying that it was Rome which made the split - from the ancient Church and its doctrines, etc.

Catherine of Siena, being from Italy, was well within her rights to help reform the Roman Church, which historically had jurisdiction over at least central Italy. Luther set out to reform the German Church, because that was his homeland. He worked exclusively in Germany, after all. Not sure how far Catherine operated, but since she assumed the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, I’m sure she probably went to Avignon as well as Rome?

Catherine did not go far enough, that’d be our claim.

To your question and your Bible quote, an old-fashioned evangelical Anglican would simply say that it’s Rome’s word against Henry’s. Rome would call Henry a schismatic for leaving the Universal Church; Henry, in his better moments, would say that Rome rebelled and was disobedient against the ancient faith by her insistence on controlling national churches.

Of course, Henry isn’t our Pope. He believed in and enforced Transubstantiation (genuflection), prayer to the saints, prayer for the dead, and many other things. He was more a Roman Catholic than anything recognisable as a Protestant Anglican.

See post #42 above, for a quote from the WCE folks explaining how the total number of denominations is derived, using a rather idiosyncratic definition of denomination.

GKC

 

[Aefensang]

See post #42 above, for a quote from the WCE folks explaining how the total number of denominations is derived, using a rather idiosyncratic definition of denomination.

GKC

Thank you for that GKC.

O.P., even if “Protestantism” got to 100 000 denominations, what would it matter to the truth? Imagine all 99 999 of them fail, and one Protestant denomination remains - say, the Church of England! Protestantism itself would still exist. The seeds were planted by Renaissance Humanism, the remnants of which still linger in the West.

The works of the Anglican Divines, Calvin’s Institutes, and Luther’s epistles and treatises all exist. Unless a particularly vengeful person set out to destroy all of these things (some of them precious manuscripts from a bygon age), Protestanism can never “fail”. It’s like asking if Claret can fail - so long as the taste for it is there, it will survive.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for that GKC.

O.P., even if “Protestantism” got to 100 000 denominations, what would it matter to the truth? Imagine all 99 999 of them fail, and one Protestant denomination remains - say, the Church of England! Protestantism itself would still exist. The seeds were planted by Renaissance Humanism, the remnants of which still linger in the West.

The works of the Anglican Divines, Calvin’s Institutes, and Luther’s epistles and treatises all exist. Unless a particularly vengeful person set out to destroy all of these things (some of them precious manuscripts from a bygon age), Protestanism can never “fail”. It’s like asking if Claret can fail - so long as the taste for it is there, it will survive.

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[joe370]

The Lord Jesus founded His Church on Pentecost, and continues to build it. As many Fathers declare, the rock upon which the Church was founded is the faith confessed by Peter. Faith, being spiritual, ebbs and flows depending upon the epoch and on the men in question. Since it is a spiritual rock, anyone who builds upon it is building upon the true foundation. I do not pretend to know the Church inside and out, but I believe Christ directs as He directs.

Being an Anglican, I do have faith that the Apostolic lineage has been preserved in Anglicanism as well as in Rome and in the East. There is no proof that any Roman bishop today is valid beyond Cardinal Rebiba, just as there is no proof that Rowan Williams descends from any of the Apostles. You may provide a list of the Popes back to Peter, but it is not as if each Pope was consecrated by the previous Pope. It’d be impossible, in fact, given that a Pope has to die before his see can be filled. There’s no record of who consecrated which Bishop of Rome, nor any bishop.

The Church of England has existed since time immemorial. It was founded only God-knows-when. It was strengthened and increased by Patrick. It was reformed by Augustine of Canterbury in 604. It was depopulated and repopulated by William in 1066. It was reformed in 1534.

There’s a famous bit of cheek about this question. You ask: “Where was your Church before 1533?” I answer “Where was your face before you washed it this morning?”

Just 2 more questions, if you don’t mind:

1. Did both the Catholic church and the Anglican church exist when Ignatius, (student of the apostles) said:

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

1. If the bible is the Christians only authority then there is no need for church authority, in terms of leadership and guidance vis-a-vis doctrinal matters. Is that what you mean? I am just trying to keep it simple.

 

[ADZ]

I think that most of protestism has gone back to the Catholic church already, without knowing it just yet. There are only a few churches now that still fly the flag of the reformation. Most churchs have forgoten why the reformation was even started and i guess most Catholics wouldn’t know either.
But it will never be gone, not by a long shot.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tarboy,

The World Christian Encyclopedia also counts the same denominatio in a different country as a different denomination. So, admittedly there may be some multiple counting errors based on their methodology. Ah, but, just look around.

I lived in Houston for many years - non-demoninationals were popping up like mushrooms after a summer shower. I was tempted to think that there were 30,000 in Houston alone! The problem is the church is built on the personal interpretation of its own pastor. How he personally understands the bible is what is presented - those who stay are in agreement (at least at that moment) and those who leave go to find a church that fits their personal interpretion of the bible. If they don’t find what they want - the obvious and well used approach is to found another church and start the process all over again! It may seem that man’s capacity for self-deception is infinite … but, there really are limits.

I do not see any of this as ‘Protestant bashing’. To the best of my knowledge, most Protestants truly believe what they have been taught - and, will ultimately be held to that standard. We will be judged in how well we live and then present the real message of Christ through the Church He founded on Peter.

God bless

Your logic is self congratulating but faulty.

I’ve seen a 30k number thrown around but never 45k denoms.
The source was the World Christian Encyclopedia
An honest look at this source showed only 8k protestant denominations, and 223 Roman Catholic denominations.

Now when you dig into the number of denominations, they are identified as seperate on the basis of jurisdiction instead of conflicts in doctrine.

One researcher identified 21 major “traditions” for Protestants, and 16 “traditions” for Roman Catholics
justforcatholics.org/a86.htm

ps. pointing out protestant bashing doesn’t mean I’m not happy to see them ‘come home’ to the RCC

 

[Aefensang]

Just 2 more questions, if you don’t mind:

1. Did both the Catholic church and the Anglican church exist when Ignatius, (student of the apostles) said:

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

I should be very clear: all our “Divines”, such as Jewell, Bramhall, Taylor, Ussher, and Bull, are very adamant that the Catholic Church is the mystical Body of Christ. Anyone in the episcopal line of the Apostles, and teaching true Biblical doctrine, is part of the Catholic Church. Some of these men were of the opinion that an episcopalian Christian (Roman, Orthodox, Anglican) could receive communion in a Presbyterian congregation (Huguenot, Swiss, Dutch), but higher Anglicans dislike that idea.

The Roman Church began to exist sometime around the A.D. 50s-60s, as the Gospel spread. The English Church began to exist sometime afterward, probably by the 200s? An ancient church with 4th century foundations now dedicated to Martin of Tours still exists in the diocese of Canterbury. The Japanese Church did not begin to exist until the 1500s with the Jesuit missionaries; does that make Japan’s Christian Church less valid or historical?

My own conviction is that a bishop descended through a valid line is a bishop of the holy Catholic Church. Having seen forms of episcopal consecration from the 9th and 6th centuries, predating R.C. additions of sacrifice and various other references, I have great confidence that the Anglican order of consecration is solidly valid.

1. If the bible is the Christians only authority then there is no need for church authority, in terms of leadership and guidance vis-a-vis doctrinal matters. Is that what you mean? I am just trying to keep it simple.

I did not say that, myself. Authority is different from infallibility. The Church is certainly an authority to be respected and kept unified at all costs. Non-conformists and dissenters were kicked out on very short notice by the classical Anglican bishops. No nonsense was tolerated if they believed someone was attacking biblical doctrine.

Church guidance is utterly crucial in terms of leadership. It is not so clear in terms of doctrine, because church leaders can err and have erred in history (re. the Arians). If we know a bishop is contradicting the bible, we have no obligation to believe or follow him in that subject. Conscience is very highly-prized.

Simplicity is golden in this sort of discussion. It can quickly spiral out of control.

I think that most of protestism has gone back to the Catholic church already, without knowing it just yet. There are only a few churches now that still fly the flag of the reformation. Most churchs have forgoten why the reformation was even started and i guess most Catholics wouldn’t know either.
But it will never be gone, not by a long shot.

Unfortunately, many on both sides have abandoned old convictions and strongly-held beliefs. There are many Pentecostals who now use vestments while styling themselves bishops (i.e. T.D. Jakes). The Reformation is indeed a distant thing to many. Anglo-Catholics and Broad/Liberal Anglicans certainly think it was more of a hindrance than a help, these days.

You’re quite right that it’ll never be gone. Even more so, a Reformed Anglican presence grows very steadily in England, among those who still attend services. News:

virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16018#.UC-gDqD16So

It will live on, thanks be to God.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aefensang,

I really would appreciate some refeences on the “English Church gegan to exist sometime afterward, probably by the 200’s”.

To the best of my knowledge, Henry VIII was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and grew up as a practicing Catholic. His desire to be united with the Catholic Church waned when his desire to be united with Ann overcame his desire to remain with Catherine. And, that means the ‘Englich Church’ had its start in the 16th Century Protestant revolt.

Besides, I do not think that ‘English’ as a language was not spoken in the 2nd Century Middle East…

God bless

I should be very clear: all our “Divines”, such as Jewell, Bramhall, Taylor, Ussher, and Bull, are very adamant that the Catholic Church is the mystical Body of Christ. Anyone in the episcopal line of the Apostles, and teaching true Biblical doctrine, is part of the Catholic Church. Some of these men were of the opinion that an episcopalian Christian (Roman, Orthodox, Anglican) could receive communion in a Presbyterian congregation (Huguenot, Swiss, Dutch), but higher Anglicans dislike that idea.

The Roman Church began to exist sometime around the A.D. 50s-60s, as the Gospel spread. The English Church began to exist sometime afterward, probably by the 200s? An ancient church with 4th century foundations now dedicated to Martin of Tours still exists in the diocese of Canterbury. The Japanese Church did not begin to exist until the 1500s with the Jesuit missionaries; does that make Japan’s Christian Church less valid or historical?

My own conviction is that a bishop descended through a valid line is a bishop of the holy Catholic Church. Having seen forms of episcopal consecration from the 9th and 6th centuries, predating R.C. additions of sacrifice and various other references, I have great confidence that the Anglican order of consecration is solidly valid.

I did not say that, myself. Authority is different from infallibility. The Church is certainly an authority to be respected and kept unified at all costs. Non-conformists and dissenters were kicked out on very short notice by the classical Anglican bishops. No nonsense was tolerated if they believed someone was attacking biblical doctrine.

Church guidance is utterly crucial in terms of leadership. It is not so clear in terms of doctrine, because church leaders can err and have erred in history (re. the Arians). If we know a bishop is contradicting the bible, we have no obligation to believe or follow him in that subject. Conscience is very highly-prized.

Simplicity is golden in this sort of discussion. It can quickly spiral out of control.

Unfortunately, many on both sides have abandoned old convictions and strongly-held beliefs. There are many Pentecostals who now use vestments while styling themselves bishops (i.e. T.D. Jakes). The Reformation is indeed a distant thing to many. Anglo-Catholics and Broad/Liberal Anglicans certainly think it was more of a hindrance than a help, these days.

You’re quite right that it’ll never be gone. Even more so, a Reformed Anglican presence grows very steadily in England, among those who still attend services. News:

virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16018#.UC-gDqD16So

It will live on, thanks be to God.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Aefensang,

I really would appreciate some refeences on the “English Church gegan to exist sometime afterward, probably by the 200’s”.

To the best of my knowledge, Henry VIII was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and grew up as a practicing Catholic. His desire to be united with the Catholic Church waned when his desire to be united with Ann overcame his desire to remain with Catherine. And, that means the ‘Englich Church’ had its start in the 16th Century Protestant revolt.

Besides, I do not think that ‘English’ as a language was not spoken in the 2nd Century Middle East…

God bless

He’s referring to the best academic estimate of the origin of the Church in England. Which is, indeed, in the 200s, more or less.

There’s a little more to the issue of Henry’s Great Matter, but you’ve seen me expound on that before, I ween.

GKC

 

[Aefensang]

Hi, Aefensang,

I really would appreciate some refeences on the “English Church gegan to exist sometime afterward, probably by the 200’s”.

To the best of my knowledge, Henry VIII was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and grew up as a practicing Catholic. His desire to be united with the Catholic Church waned when his desire to be united with Ann overcame his desire to remain with Catherine. And, that means the ‘Englich Church’ had its start in the 16th Century Protestant revolt.

Besides, I do not think that ‘English’ as a language was not spoken in the 2nd Century Middle East…

God bless

Hi tqualey! First of all: God bless you too!

I don’t believe there’s much evidence that the Christian Church existed in what-is-now-England in the 3rd century. Perhaps GKC knows more about that. Listen to him, for he is a neutral and well-informed person.

St. Martin’s Church in the archdiocese of Canterbury has foundations going back to the 4th century. Patrick arrived in Britain around A.D. 406, and legend says he established 365 churches across the islands. Gregory of Rome sent the bishop Augustine to reform the English Church at the request of English nobility. Obviously they were Angles, Saxons, and Jutes at the time, but we employ the term anachronistically for ease of use.

The local Church of Byzantium had to be renamed the Church of Constantinople in 330 when the name of that fishing village was changed. Does that mean there was no Church of Constantinople before 330? Of course not! The name just reflects changes in culture & place-names. What the Anglo-Saxon Church was in 700, we’d call the English Church in 1600, because that was the dominant Christian apostolic church in that place at the time. It is the same entity.

The English Church - or better, the Celtic or Britannic Church - has existed since the first missionaries of Christ set foot on the islands. We take “Church” to mean a community of Christians with a bishop connected to the Apostles by the Succession. There were valid bishops of England before 1533, and indeed all the bishops who voted to leave Roman jurisdiction had been consecrated as Roman Catholics. If you want to be semantic, the schism was started by Roman Catholic bishops - since they were all Roman Catholics in doctrine, except regarding the authority of the pope. That’s the lynchpin, though, of all Catholicism.

 

[GKC]

Hi tqualey! First of all: God bless you too!

I don’t believe there’s much evidence that the Christian Church existed in what-is-now-England in the 3rd century. Perhaps GKC knows more about that. Listen to him, for he is a neutral and well-informed person.

St. Martin’s Church in the archdiocese of Canterbury has foundations going back to the 4th century. Patrick arrived in Britain around A.D. 406, and legend says he established 365 churches across the islands. Gregory of Rome sent the bishop Augustine to reform the English Church at the request of English nobility. Obviously they were Angles, Saxons, and Jutes at the time, but we employ the term anachronistically for ease of use.

The local Church of Byzantium had to be renamed the Church of Constantinople in 330 when the name of that fishing village was changed. Does that mean there was no Church of Constantinople before 330? Of course not! The name just reflects changes in culture & place-names. What the Anglo-Saxon Church was in 700, we’d call the English Church in 1600, because that was the dominant Christian apostolic church in that place at the time. It is the same entity.

The English Church - or better, the Celtic or Britannic Church - has existed since the first missionaries of Christ set foot on the islands. We take “Church” to mean a community of Christians with a bishop connected to the Apostles by the Succession. There were valid bishops of England before 1533, and indeed all the bishops who voted to leave Roman jurisdiction had been consecrated as Roman Catholics. If you want to be semantic, the schism was started by Roman Catholic bishops - since they were all Roman Catholics in doctrine, except regarding the authority of the pope. That’s the lynchpin, though, of all Catholicism.

That the Church existed, in some form, in the Isles, in the 3rd century, is a logical deduction from the fact that 3 British bishops attended the Council of Arles, in 314. This suggests that some time prior, in the 200s, the Church arrived and was organized into dioceses, by that later date. Exactly when, no one knows, unless one accepts the pious legends centered on Joseph of Arimathea/Glastonbury. Historians don’t.

GKC

 

[joe370]

If we know a bishop is contradicting the bible, we have no obligation to believe or follow him in that subject…

Many protestants claim that the catholic church supports teachings that contradict the Holy Bible. If the Holy Bible is the Christians final authority then how can we know that their interpretation of the Christians final authority (the Holy Bible) is wrong? If I was to suggest to say, my sister, that she is misinterpreting the Holy Bible, she will simply respond with: the Holy Bible is my only authority, not you or the catholic church or the eastern orthodox church or the anglican church. I think this is why protestantism continues to divide. Your thoughts?

 

[Aefensang]

Aefensang;9664974:

Many protestants claim that the catholic church supports teachings that contradict the Holy Bible. If the Holy Bible is the Christians final authority then how can we know that their interpretation of the Christians final authority (the Holy Bible) is wrong? If I was to suggest to say, my sister, that she is misinterpreting the Holy Bible, she will simply respond with: the Holy Bible is my only authority

, not you or the catholic church or the eastern orthodox church or the anglican church. I think this is why protestantism continues to divide. Your thoughts?

We can know whether someone’s ‘interpretation’ of the Bible is wrong by reading the Bible in a more prayerful and complete way; that is, bothering to read references, footnotes, and related passages. Since we believe the Bible contains the bare truths we need to know & live in order to go to the place prepared for us in Heaven, it is our bounden duty to search the Scriptures as the Lord Jesus commanded.

Your sister may reject authorities other than the Scriptures, but that does not excuse her from refusing to see what the authoritative Scriptures say about God. To give an example: if your sister believes Jesus is not God, you cannot blame this on her appeal to Scripture alone, because Scripture is quite clear that Jesus is divine. You must blame her for not following her own rule; it is her fault for not having read and prayed about it, not the Scripture’s fault for being ambiguous or for lacking authority.

One question I’ve always wanted to ask: what* is* necessary for salvation that* isn’t* in the Bible? I sincerely doubt the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be put forward, since believing it was not considered necessary for salvation nigh on 1800 years.

I think Protestantism continues to divide because it does not hold by its own tenets. Were Protestants to follow Sola scriptura and keep the historic episcopate for good order, they would at least try to live John 17.

You had the Lutheran party, the English Reformers, the Calvinists, and the Radicals (Anabaptists & Mennonites). These four were the only Protestant systems in Europe. Protestantism grew out of theological schools and colleges across Europe spontaneously & in far-flung places. Most of it was simply an outburst of dissent backed by greedy lay lords, in my opinion. They were sick of 500+ years of Rome controlling investiture and church matters in their lands, so they wanted an excuse to cut off. It was mostly about secular power for the lords who protected Luther and Calvin.

For an idea of a few early continental schisms, know that the Calvinist council in Geneva kicked someone out of the church for composing new psalm-tunes, when the state had implemented its own official melodies for the psalms. I think Roman Catholics will say that resulted in a minor schism, yet it had nothing to do with the Protestantism of the parties involved, but more with fallen pride & arrogance.

English Protestantism did not divide for 200 years after the Reformation. Anglicanism and Puritanism struggled against each other for political reasons that any Catholic nobles might have squabble about. Actual schism did not occur in Anglicanism until the Methodists made a point of leaving around 1800. After them, the wave of schisms that characterise modern Protestantism began. I don’t think it can be blamed on Protestantism per se, but on the continental “Enlightenment” which emphasised individualism beyond what is sensible.

There are many factors behind this divisive nature of our protestants. The very deepest nature of the ethos is not one of them.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aefensang,

Oh, is that what you mean… well… sure - no problem.

God bless

Hi tqualey! First of all: God bless you too!

I don’t believe there’s much evidence that the Christian Church existed in what-is-now-England in the 3rd century. Perhaps GKC knows more about that. Listen to him, for he is a neutral and well-informed person.

St. Martin’s Church in the archdiocese of Canterbury has foundations going back to the 4th century. Patrick arrived in Britain around A.D. 406, and legend says he established 365 churches across the islands. Gregory of Rome sent the bishop Augustine to reform the English Church at the request of English nobility. Obviously they were Angles, Saxons, and Jutes at the time, but we employ the term anachronistically for ease of use.

The local Church of Byzantium had to be renamed the Church of Constantinople in 330 when the name of that fishing village was changed. Does that mean there was no Church of Constantinople before 330? Of course not! The name just reflects changes in culture & place-names. What the Anglo-Saxon Church was in 700, we’d call the English Church in 1600, because that was the dominant Christian apostolic church in that place at the time. It is the same entity.

The English Church - or better, the Celtic or Britannic Church - has existed since the first missionaries of Christ set foot on the islands. We take “Church” to mean a community of Christians with a bishop connected to the Apostles by the Succession. There were valid bishops of England before 1533, and indeed all the bishops who voted to leave Roman jurisdiction had been consecrated as Roman Catholics. If you want to be semantic, the schism was started by Roman Catholic bishops - since they were all Roman Catholics in doctrine, except regarding the authority of the pope. That’s the lynchpin, though, of all Catholicism.