• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

how do Protestants explain history?

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
In the end we can only asses assess what is true on the balance of credibility. I don't believe God failed in his promise. Matthew 16:18 I'm not going to believe that the first eighteen hundred years of Christian doctrine is one big error. It's just not credible.
I agree. God did not fail in His promise, but as to exactly what His promise was -- that's open to interpretation. Furthermore, I don't believe that the first 1800 years of Christian doctrine was "one big error." But considering the fact that there were some pretty significant differences of opinion as to what was accurate Christian doctrine, as far back even as the years immediately following the Apostles' death, not all of those competing doctrines could conceivably have been "true." I don't even know what your religion is, but if you are a Protestant, you clearly don't believe that Catholicism is the Church Jesus Christ established. And if you are a Catholic, you obviously believe that the Protestants are in error. If we're going to speak of what's credible and what's not, that's something that we've got to consider.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
The only time that this has happened...
You're trying to minimize the significance of what the Roman Catholic church has done through history with regards to putting the decrees of men above and in contradiction to the Word of God, but you're not actually denying that they've done it.

So if you're not denying they have done it, and still claim to be able to do it, then what point exactly are you trying to prove?

such pronouncements must have historical precedent and not violate the scriptures

They can claim it doesn't violate the scriptures, but the whole reason the protestant reformation happened is precisely because they were violating the Scriptures and continue to do so.

Simple but profound example: Forbidding priests to marry.

Paul talks of church leaders with the assumption that they will be married:
1 Timothy 3:2

He mentions peter and other church leaders being married, and says it is their right to do so:
1 Corinthians 9:5

He further links those who teach people shoud not get married are linked with lying spirits and the doctrines of demons:
1 Timothy 4:1-3

Furthermore:
How was the Roman Catholic church following both apostalic tradition and Scripture when they sold indulgences for sin, sold tickets out of purgatory, turned people to idol worship of Mary by teaching her to be a sinless co-redeemer with Christ, saw no need to teach the common person what the scripture said, and burned people at the stake for translating the Bible into the common tongue?

The answer: They weren't. So why could they get away with doing such things that flagrantly violate the message and intent of Scripture? Because the people following these leaders didn't know the Scriptures well enough for themselves to challenge them. Church leaders even had questionable They may have never heard them spoken in their own tongue, let alone read them for themselves.

The Bible was not the "authority" in the early church-- the church leaders were. See, what you are doing is putting forth a Protestant position that probably you were brought up in as I was, but it simply isn't historically true, nor true even according to the scriptures themselves.

The Old Testament scriptures absolutely were authoritative in the early church.
The early church can be seen to be operating under the same principle that later protestants did: That God will not tell you to do something today which violates what He has already revealed.

The Bereans were called of a more noble character because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true.
Galatians 1:8

Appeals to the authority of the OT are effusive throughout the NT. From Jesus Himself to Paul, in almost every book except a couple of the smallest ones.

Paul refers to the Scriptures as that which leads to God's wisdom and understanding about Christ. 2 Timothy 3:15-17

Further, we see even in the NT there is already an early recognition of these writings as authoritative, on par with Scripture of the OT:
2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture.
1 Timothy 5:18, Paul refers to the Gospel of Luke as Scripture.

The earliest church writers after the NT like Clement, polycarp, and ignatius make frequent reference to both OT Scripture and appeal also to that which is found in the NT today as authoritative.
1 Clement specifically, from late 1st century church history, refers to Paul's writings as Scripture.


What you never see early Church leaders doing: Declaring that their words represent truth, even when it contradicts something which God has already revealed, claiming that people should follow their revelation as more authoritative than what the Bible has already revealed.
People who tried that, like Marcion in the 2nd century, are called out by the Church as heretics for rejecting both the entire OT and most of the NT Scripture.

We see from all 2nd century historical canon lists and archeology that the NT books we have were already recognized as authoritative Scripture by that time. Maricon's rejection of so much Scripture is, itself, also a confirmation of the fact that that large body of work was already commonly accepted and believed by the Church as authoritative Scripture.

Neither history nor the Scripture supports you claim that what the early Christians church put the authority of men above the authority of God's Word.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Neither history nor the Scripture supports you claim that what the early Christians church put the authority of men above the authority of God's Word.
I already covered the above fallacy, plus I thought the post I had responded to was from @siti, not you.

I'll make sure this doesn't happen again for reasons previously expressed.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
But the RCC does not claim that it is exclusive, especially since they recognize the other churches that were a product of apostolic succession. Plus, even though the Protestant churches aren't from that lineage, they are not viewed as being somehow "pagan". Matter of fact, the current pope made that quite clear just a few weeks ago when discussing various matters with members of the Evangelical Church.
Yes! But I was responding to Adamski not the Pope - I didn't know he was on RF but I'm glad he agrees with me. Not sure where that leaves Adamski's contention that the Protestant Church doesn't share that history - I suppose the next Ecumenical Council will denounce this view as heretical. :p
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not sure where that leaves Adamski's contention that the Protestant Church doesn't share that history
Actually what we call the "Protestant Church" does not share that history, but protesting does as there's always been difference of opinions within the CC, the Orthodox, the Copts, etc. No branch of Protestantism can trace its roots back to the apostolic church, but the CC, OC, the Anglicans, and the Copts can and do.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
@metis - if you sway any further you'll fall over - you must know that this
No branch of Protestantism can trace its roots back to the apostolic church
is complete nonsense. All the branches of the Protestant Church (by definition) can trace their roots back to Catholicism - via Anglicanism in some cases (Methodists for example)...Was Luther NOT a Catholic Priest after all then? Was Wesley not really an Anglican Priest? Is that part of the history made up? Need I go on?

[Edited to correct potentially confusing wording].
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
I already covered the above fallacy
And your claims just got disproven by citations of actual history and scripture.

Simply asserting something is true and claiming yourself to be an expert doesn't absolve you of the need to actually prove why what you say is true based on appealing to history, archeology, scripture, or other objective pieces of information.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Basically Protestantism didn't exists for over 1500 year after Jesus how can they believe it is the true Christian faith when there is no archeological or historical evidence for their belief system

Thanks

I believe early Protestant leaders and writers were not interested in historicity but thought that The Roman Catholic Church had missed the mark of what it means to be a Christian. In one sense this stems from a belief that Orthodoxy is not valuable if it isn't valid.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
All the branches of the Protestant Church (by definition) can trace their roots back to Catholicism
Yes they can, but they were not a by-product of apostolic succession, which was the definitive mark of the apostolic church.

BTW, I had misread what you posted before in that I thought you were saying that the Protestants can be traced back to the early church, so this is where at least one disconnect occurred, and that's my fault. Sorry.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
...

I'm not a Protestant, or even a Christian, and I can see just, every fault in this logic. Do you really need this explained to you? How old are you? Because this is the reasoning of a 10yr old.

I have heard this type of argument from The Church of Christ and The Way International, that foundational theology must be the right theology. What then do they say of the Arians and Gnostics that were early theologians also?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I believe early Protestant leaders and writers were not interested in historicity but thought that The Roman Catholic Church had missed the mark of what it means to be a Christian.
Actually not. When you read what the Protestant leaders were saying is that it was the leadership that they had problems with, along with questioning some of the church's teachings. None of them that I'm aware of made blanket condemnations of the CC. Luther, for example, intended to only leave the CC temporarily, thus hoping that there would be serious reform.

Actually there was some serious reform that's called the "Counter Reformation", but that didn't occur until after the split was so distant that reconciliation was pretty much impossible.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
I have heard this type of argument from The Church of Christ and The Way International, that foundational theology must be the right theology. What then do they say of the Arians and Gnostics that were early theologians also?
I speak only of actual history. Your theology is of no real interest to me. "Protestants" exist because of dissent within the RCC. They claim that the RCC lost its way at some point in history. Far as I'm concerned, the lot of you have equal claim to the teachings of the Nazarene. He's not my god, I don't care about your squabbles, but this guy's pretense of "there were no Protestants in Jesus's time" while technically true, is also immature in the extreme and just either intellectually dishonest or simply stupid.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Actually not. When you read what the Protestant leaders were saying is that it was the leadership that they had problems with, along with questioning some of the church's teachings. None of them that I'm aware of made blanket condemnations of the CC. Luther, for example, intended to only leave the CC temporarily, thus hoping that there would be serious reform.

Actually there was some serious reform that's called the "Counter Reformation", but that didn't occur until after the split was so distant that reconciliation was pretty much impossible.
This. All of this here. The Catholic Church had countless opportunities to heal this schism with the Protestants. This was not some unavoidable split like with the Orthodox, who had long diverged culturally.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Luther never claimed to have that authority he said the bible did a book compiled 300 years after Jesus, jeuss never said to read his book he said to follow the church he started
I believe you are in error because Jesus said "follow me." For a church to put itself in the place of Christ is presumption at its worst. Not only that attributing something to Him that He never said is blasphemy.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
He's not my god, I don't care about your squabbles, but this guy's pretense of "there were no Protestants in Jesus's time" while technically true, is also immature in the extreme and just either intellectually dishonest or simply stupid.
The part I have argued about just deals with what's "technically true", and I have not argued that Protestants are somehow illegitimate.

As a non-believer, I really don't get into which churches are supposedly legitimate or not, which shows up in quite a few of my other posts on other threads.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
This. All of this here. The Catholic Church had countless opportunities to heal this schism with the Protestants. This was not some unavoidable split like with the Orthodox, who had long diverged culturally.
I agree and never implied otherwise.

However, I do admit that my playing devil's advocate may confuse those who do not really know where I'm coming from. Maybe I should cut back on that? ;)
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I speak only of actual history. Your theology is of no real interest to me. "Protestants" exist because of dissent within the RCC. They claim that the RCC lost its way at some point in history. Far as I'm concerned, the lot of you have equal claim to the teachings of the Nazarene. He's not my god, I don't care about your squabbles, but this guy's pretense of "there were no Protestants in Jesus's time" while technically true, is also immature in the extreme and just either intellectually dishonest or simply stupid.

I believe you are correct. Paul protested the views of the Judaizers but that squabble was settled peacefully. The Greeks protested that their widows weren't being treated fairly and that was handled well by Peter. Somewhere along the line the view became that any protest was due to someone being an enemy of the church that needed to be eradicated.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
God directed Peter and the apostles directly not Luther those apostles appointed others who appointed others and so on
I believe the saying in Protestant circles is that God doesn't have grandchildren. At least the RCC didn't make the office hereditary but how inspired those selections were remains something only God can tell. It seems politics have played a larger part than inspiration over the years.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I believe the saying in Protestant circles is that God doesn't have grandchildren. At least the RCC didn't make the office hereditary but how inspired those selections were remains something only God can tell. It seems politics have played a larger part than inspiration over the years.
It is of my opinion that the single biggest mistake made by the CC was to get way too chummy with the political powers, whereas this mix hurt and killed a lot of people over the centuries. There were even some popes who were appointed by the emperor and who were atheists. I believe that it was Pope Alexander VIII who actually held orgies in the Vatican.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Luther never intended to leave the CC permanently.

BTW, I grew up in a fundamentalist Lutheran church, and I heard regular anti-Catholic rants both there and from my parents. In two months, I will have been married to a Catholic woman for 50 years.

I believe one may understand the antipathy when one's adherents are burned at the stake and followers massacred. It surely does no exemplify the love of Christ and breaks the commandment of Jesus for us to love one another.
 
Top