None of that has any relevance to the discussion of the OP issue since we're not talking on the background of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic scholars (like
s) who were who protested against it - although it has been discussed elsewhere if wanting to pursue that train of thought, as seen in "
.
And with the Bible not given to the masses line, that really is not historically accurate - nor is it complete when others forget that there were many who went against others going counter to the Church by assuming all practices within it were not on point - the Bible line being one of the basics. As another noted best:
On most of those things, Protestants have already done - we had Bible burnings from Protestant camps against other camps - the Anabaptists are one example of this with the Radical Reformation as well as what occurred with the Anglican/Church of England when they persecuted Catholics and many fled to the New World (as well as burning of Churches - we see that plainly with the history of churches in the U.S - especially the South when it came to the experiences of Blacks who were terrorized or denied the Bible as well....more shared on that e
lsewhere on the history of Black Christians and how they often experienced many of the same things Protestans accuse Catholics of doing with Inquisitionsl). Protestants also have denied the concept of Faith Alone - as well as ignored where Catholics never advocated something such as "Faith alone" -
As another
noted best:
The standard Protestant view is monergism with respect to justification: God alone renders us just or righteous in his sight, without our co-operation. But most Protestants would add that sanctification is a co-operative enterprise in which our will and work have a necessary role to play, working together with the grace of God. So most Protestants are monergists about justification but synergists about sanctification. And since justification by faith alone is all that is necessary for salvation, most Protestants are also monergists about salvation.
More was discussed elsewhere on the issue,
as seen here - as well as the historical backgroundof what the Jews did and why in Early Judaism praying for the dead was done by believers...as seen in
Why did early Christians pray for the dead?.....and on the ways others misrepresent respect/high reverence for Mary as being about worshipping her (even though that has NEVER been advocated any more than one saying "Abraham is the Father of our faith" means they worship Abraham), one can go to places such as
Hail Mary = God centered prayer. and
Why was it important that Mary was Virgin before she had Christ?.
On Mary, What concerns me is when my fellow Protestants take their concerns over Marian devotion too far. Take John Knox for example. He tells the story, possibly referring to himself, of a Catholic Priest telling a man (Knox?) to kiss a picture of Mary. Instead the person grabbed the picture, cast it into the sea, and stated, "Let our Lady now save herself: she is light enough: let her learn to swim." And I ask myself, is this what Jesus had in mind when he, from the cross, commanded his disciple to care for his mother?
In the end, have there been times and places where Marian devotion turned into Mary worship? I'm sure that there have been. But this is neither what others believe as Protestants who respects Mary, nor what the Catholic or Orthodox have ever officially taught. Certainly there have been people throughout history who took it too far, but that is true of every doctrine, not just Mary. Mary deserves our respect and love. And As the angel said, "Hail Mary! Full of Grace the Lord is with thee! Blessed art though amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb!"
But with everything else in the list you gave, Protestants have all done as well - thus, it is a bit of a false scenario presented and not histroricaly accurate.
And on the issue of Tradition, the same dynamic cannot be escaped when it comes to seeing what developed first - Scripture or the Tradition that determined whether or not it was to be included as Scripture.
And for many Protestants today -
1. The use of images in worship is objected to .
2. Claiming that the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass
3. Priests with magic powers to confect Christ and forgive sins (powers that are retained supposedly even if the priest is defrocked).
4. Authority of the Papacy -- denied by many/most Protestants.
And I have one or two others I suppose.
Again, it should be noted that the focus of the OP isn't really on any of the things you brought up. I'll address them in this post only - but that's as far as it goes since it doesn't address the OP topic..
=== And of course all of it objected to not only by Protestants today - but it would be objectionable in the scenario where everyone was Southern Baptist and then "tomorrow" the "Catholic Church of New Jersey" suddenly appeared claiming all the items listed above.
It simply would not fly.
None of that deals with the issue, of course, of how that scenario already played out during the Protestant Reformation with many other groups claiming to "reform" the Church even though others within the Catholic Church who saw abuses realized those splinter groups gaining influence by virtue of the fact that they had an audience - and thus, the scene changed. Moreover, seeing how the groups have continually evolved to our era, it's incomplete saying things wouldn't develop in light of what has already happened in history.
There's no objective way of showing that a world where all churches were Southern Baptist wouldn't have it where another doing things opposite of that could rise up and gain influence.
But even in disagreeing with that, as I already noted, the topic is off course since what was noted was what would occur in a world WITHOUT ANY CHURCHES - your scenario was off to begin with since it started with Baptists being the ones in existence.....not starting with no churches being in existence and going from there based on how things have played out in Church history.
In your OP I thought you were proposing that today - we suddenly had a wiping out of all history and tradition that preceded us - so that we only had the 66 books of scripture to go on.
I then start with a group (The SBC) that is known for a "66 books and nothing more" policy and propose a scenario where the "Pope of New Jersey" suddenly appears with all the same claims as the RCC makes today.
You missed the purpose of the OP - and as it concerns the OP, I spelled that out directly....what was focused on was having ALL SCRIPTURE, all TRADITION/Churches WIPED OUT....and seeing how the Lord would start things again or if He would. Moreover, I never was focused on the 66 books alone.
I think we would all agree that such a group simply would not get off the ground today - given the context of your OP.
Not really - seeing that it was never noted that groups diverging greatly from what already was present before have gotten off the group before repeatedly - and that's something even Luther and others noted in their era as well as other groups reforming the Church from within and yet being amazed at how quickly other groups began.
The same goes for churches in areas where there's a dominant practice - but another one starts with a different view and changes in time. We see this dynamic even with what has occurred within the Pentecostal world..and as said before elsewhere:
Gxg (G²);64660248 said:
I think one has to first examine what the whole of scripture says before claiming that theology is shaped according to the needs of communities - for this is something that Christ and the Early Church/Prophets spoke on when it came to the issue of theological forms of ministry varying based on the age and the time.
And sometimes, due to differences (As my friend noted best), it was deemed "bad theology."
Miracles didn't always happen in every age - as the time would've required focus on economic concerns (As with the Book of Amos) .....while at other times fire came from heaven as with the Prophets like Elijah - and other times, the dead were raised or God answered dreams. With the 3rd world, many often assume there's no careful or sober/peer-reviewed scholarship going on because others go past boundaries they are comfortable with - yet the reality of the matter is that the boundaries they placed up were ones others BEFORE them felt were past what others needed to be in check.
Something being different doesn't always mean that it needs to be placed in check...and sometimes, it is the reach of others trying to control it that can be what really needs to be checked.
GG..
Your argument is that in fact historically the RCC did evolve over time and come into being given a sola-scriptura starting point in the first century
. But that was due to a unique situation in Rome regarding the bishop of Rome and the fact that Rome was the head of the entire Roman Empire - and that Emperor Constantine converts his entire Army to the religion of the Bishop of Rome who would later be handed even more control when the capital was moved to Constantinople.
The church-state scenario the flooded the Christian church brought about an influx of pagan practices into the Christian church that even the RC historian Thomas Bokenkotter could not ignore.
in Christ,
Bob
Nowhere close to the argument being advocated - and that is your own interjection since I never mentioned focusing on the RCC. You did that - and I already noted what the focus of the OP was about.
As said before, the central question was the following:
Gxg (G²);65137377 said:
Do you feel that the Church could ever be rebooted so to speak or in danger of being wiped out - only for God to start over fresh with it? Or is that something that shouldn't even be a concern?
And if the Bibles and Church history was erased/destroyed but somehow managed to survive, do you feel that what would emerge afterward would look radically different than what we see now with all the different camps that have arisen (i.e. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) or would groups formulate again that'd be exactly the same to what happened before?
One needs to go back and read the rest of the ORIGINAL post topic if continuing in discussion - and again, for the sake of clarification, one can go to #
8 #
10 - and
Kylissacaught exactly where I was coming from, as seen in #
14