There have always been Protestants

[apollosdtr]

There have always been Protestants

"... there have been protestants in the Church from the very beginning of Christianity, since liberty and truth could not be maintained here below, save by protesting continually against despotism and error... "
--J H Merle d'Aubigne (Huguenot), History of the Great Reformation, v4

"My purpose is not to write the history of a party, but that of one of the greatest revolutions which has taken place among men—the history of a mighty impulse which was given to the world three centuries ago, and the influence of which is still, in our day, every where perceived. The history of the Reformation is different from the history of Protestantism. In the former, every thing bears testimony to a revival of human nature, to a transformation, social and religious, emanating from God. In the latter are too often seen a remarkable degeneracy from primitive principles, party intrigue, a sectarian spirit, and the impress of petty private feelings. The history of Protestantism might interest none but Protestants; the history of the Reformation is for all Christians, or rather all men."
The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, by J. H. MERLE D'AUBIGNÉ.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"... there have been protestants in the Church from the very beginning of Christianity, since liberty and truth could not be maintained here below, save by protesting continually against despotism and error... "
--J H Merle d'Aubigne (Huguenot), History of the Great Reformation, v4

I guess I'd be part of the second reformation?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Is our liberty more precious than our God? Our God wanted us as one (John 17) and said the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18,19). Good people from within the Church helped set the corrupt Church leaders back on track. There was no need to go outside the Church to correct the problems if one had faith in God's Word.

If you had to choose between loving and serving Our God and Liberty which would you choose? Don't let liberty be your idol.

 

[apollosdtr]

"... there have been protestants in the Church from the very beginning of Christianity, since liberty and truth could not be maintained here below, save by protesting continually against despotism and error... "
--J H Merle d'Aubigne (Huguenot), History of the Great Reformation, v4

"My purpose is not to write the history of a party, but that of one of the greatest revolutions which has taken place among men—the history of a mighty impulse which was given to the world three centuries ago, and the influence of which is still, in our day, every where perceived. The history of the Reformation is different from the history of Protestantism. In the former, every thing bears testimony to a revival of human nature, to a transformation, social and religious, emanating from God. In the latter are too often seen a remarkable degeneracy from primitive principles, party intrigue, a sectarian spirit, and the impress of petty private feelings. The history of Protestantism might interest none but Protestants; the history of the Reformation is for all Christians, or rather all men."
The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, by J. H. MERLE D'AUBIGNÉ.

Is our liberty more precious than our God? Our God wanted us as one (John 17) and said the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18,19). Good people from within the Church helped set the corrupt Church leaders back on track. There was no need to go outside the Church to correct the problems if one had faith in God's Word.

If you had to choose between loving and serving Our God and Liberty which would you choose? Don't let liberty be your idol.

The battle is actually "liberty and truth" vs "despotism and error"... didn't you pick that out from the first quote of the OP? If not, you're missing the whole point.

John 17 is written about a specific group: those men given to Him by the Father, who were taught the Gospel Jesus began preaching in Matthew 4:12--Matthew 26:13, etc.
Those men then took these sayings of Jesus to make new disciples, Matthew 28:18-20.
John 12:44-50 says they're not His words, but the Father's words... and that we're really worshipping the Father when we worship Him.
The gates of Hades, Matthew 16:18, is the wide gate of destruction in Matthew 7:13-14. In Matthew 13:19, Jesus says the wicked has ripped out the seed planted by the Son of man, Matthew 13:37, and an enemy has planted tares, Matthew 13:25.

 

[apollosdtr]

I guess I'd be part of the second reformation?

I'm sorry... Are we having a new reformation and nobody invited me?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm sorry... Are we having a new reformation and nobody invited me?

"All are invited, but few are able to accept."

 

[Aussie Pete]

Is our liberty more precious than our God? Our God wanted us as one (John 17) and said the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18,19). Good people from within the Church helped set the corrupt Church leaders back on track. There was no need to go outside the Church to correct the problems if one had faith in God's Word.

If you had to choose between loving and serving Our God and Liberty which would you choose? Don't let liberty be your idol.

The problem is the definition of "church". The church is all who are born again, not just those who subscribe to a particular denomination or religious organisation. There is no Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or Pentecostal church from God's point of view.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm sorry... Are we having a new reformation and nobody invited me?

I think the start of it was called "emergent" but it may have started as soon as Azusa Street. It's still developing. However, since the effects of the first reformation resulted in religious freedom from being burnt on a stake, it's harder to identify and pin down.

The tyranny and wrong doctrine being fought against now is medieval and colonial doctrines still persisting in mainstream churches.

 

[fhansen]

Is our liberty more precious than our God? Our God wanted us as one (John 17) and said the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18,19). Good people from within the Church helped set the corrupt Church leaders back on track. There was no need to go outside the Church to correct the problems if one had faith in God's Word.

If you had to choose between loving and serving Our God and Liberty which would you choose? Don't let liberty be your idol.

This is true. Increasingly society worships at the altar of human freedom, wherever it might lead, and, interestingly and ironically, that was the original sin of Adam. And while freedom from tyranny is good, true freedom is only found in slavery to goodness, in slavery to God. And while no Christian believes that they’re shackled, true freedom comes from the truth, which is not divided, and the fullness of which resides in the Church established by Christ.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There have always been Protestants

They go back a long way, I'll grant you that. Korah in Numbers 16 would probably qualify by this standard.
What was the significance of the rebellion of Korah? | GotQuestions.org

 

[tampasteve]

The thing is, the Western Church was never really as top down as the "official" history wants us to believe. The churches had far more autonomy than we think now. The liturgies and beliefs in Gaul, the British Isles, North Africa, etc. were far more varied than we are led to believe. Cultural norms in these places put a lot of different spins on the practices of the laity, monastics, and others than we tend to think. Not to mention the various Orthodox churches, the Church of the East, etc.

Are they "Protestants" like we think of in regards to Jan Hus, Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin? No, not really. But they were also not the infallible, Pope heavy Roman church that developed in the Middle Ages. That is a fiction presented by the RCC that is not really substantiated in reality.

 

[apollosdtr]

"All are invited, but few are able to accept."

Still fewer will stay the course.

I think the start of it was called "emergent" but it may have started as soon as Azusa Street. It's still developing. However, since the effects of the first reformation resulted in religious freedom from being burnt on a stake, it's harder to identify and pin down.

The tyranny and wrong doctrine being fought against now is medieval and colonial doctrines still persisting in mainstream churches.

Is this a fair summary, in your opinion? If so... I would never back it.
What Was the Azusa Street Revival?

What connection does the Reformation have to the Inquisition and witch-burning? Do you see it happening again, if the New Reformation ever takes hold? What effect did the First Reformation have on Bible Canon?

 

[apollosdtr]

The problem is the definition of "church". The church is all who are born again, not just those who subscribe to a particular denomination or religious organisation. There is no Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or Pentecostal church from God's point of view.

(1) You can't put that which is being protested against... in the same category as those doing the protesting... if you want to be taken seriously.

(2) Even the definition of what it means to be born from above, and how that event occurs, is widely disputed.

(3) If like-minded people come to a conclusion, they have the free-will of God to become a denomination. If you don't like them doing it, you have the right to abstain.

 

[apollosdtr]

This is true. Increasingly society worships at the altar of human freedom, wherever it might lead, and, interestingly and ironically, that was the original sin of Adam. And while freedom from tyranny is good, true freedom is only found in slavery to goodness, in slavery to God. And while no Christian believes that they’re shackled, true freedom comes from the truth, which is not divided, and the fullness of which resides in the Church established by Christ.

Not all Christians believe themselves to be slaves or servants.
Here, Jesus is speaking to His Galilean Disciples:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I Command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth, but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you.

 

[fhansen]

Not all Christians believe themselves to be slaves or servants.
Here, Jesus is speaking to His Galilean Disciples:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I Command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth, but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you.

It's can be a matter of perspective, I guess. Man must serve something, either God or himself with the devil's sanction.
"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." Rom 6:22

 

[apollosdtr]

The thing is, the Western Church was never really as top down as the "official" history wants us to believe. The churches had far more autonomy than we think now. The liturgies and beliefs in Gaul, the British Isles, North Africa, etc. were far more varied than we are led to believe. Cultural norms in these places put a lot of different spins on the practices of the laity, monastics, and others than we tend to think. Not to mention the various Orthodox churches, the Church of the East, etc.

Are they "Protestants" like we think of in regards to Jan Hus, Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin? No, not really. But they were also not the infallible, Pope heavy Roman church that developed in the Middle Ages. That is a fiction presented by the RCC that is not really substantiated in reality.

I can't speak for the other varietes, but this is why Britain was different:

A History of the British Church

"BE it known (and without doubt) unto you, that we all, and every one of us, are obedient and subject to the Church of God, and to the Pope of Rome, and to every godly Christian, to love every one in his degree, in perfect Charity, and to help every one of them, by word and deed to be Children of God: And other obedience than this I do not know to be due to him whom you name to be Pope; nor by the Father of Fathers to be claimed or demanded. And this obedience we are ready to give and pay to him, and to every Christian continually. Besides, we are under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who is to oversee under God over us, and cause us to keep the way spiritual.
...
"Austin having met with this affront, and perceiving that the Britons were stronger in their Faith than he by his Miracles, cast about to try the Saxons courtesie; that what the Ephod could not, the Sword wrapt up therein should. I say not that he procured, but he threatned or prophesied the destruction of the Monks of Bangor; and it came to pass, and the accasion by writers loudly suspected."
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A59082.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Britain may have been the First Protestant Church, if not for the fact that Augustine (Austin) came after the Gospel was already planted in Britain.

 

[apollosdtr]

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I Command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth, but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you.

It's can be a matter of perspective, I guess. Man must serve something, either God or himself with the devil's sanction.
"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." Rom 6:22

Which absolutely points out the need for denominations.

 

[fhansen]

Which absolutely points out the need for denominations.

I...find no connection there, but...ok.

Actually the need for a single interpreter would be indicated IMO. But in this case we're talking more about our own private understandings anyway.

 

[apollosdtr]

I...find no connection there, but...ok.

Actually the need for a single interpreter would be indicated IMO. But in this case we're talking more about our own private understandings anyway.

The modern dictionary says "interpret" means to explain... but that's not what the Bible says.

John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
hermeneuo = from a presumed derivative of Hermes (as the god of language); to translate:--interpret.

Is it really up to man--with his finite mind--to explain what the infinite God means?

 

[fhansen]

The modern dictionary says "interpret" means to explain... but that's not what the Bible says.

John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
hermeneuo = from a presumed derivative of Hermes (as the god of language); to translate:--interpret.

Is it really up to man--with his finite mind--to explain what the infinite God means?

The answer is fairly simple. When a legitimate question arises, which they do, who else can give the answer? We might all claim to have the holy Spirit in such cases but we will often still come up with different understandings. The mind of man is unavoidably involved.