Is protestantism logical?

[Dominus Fidelis]

Some protestants seem to forget that the very entymology of their title means "those who protest". They exist because they split from the Catholic Church, creating a schism...something that is condemned, by the way, in their own scriptures and violates the will of their Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, as described in John 17.

They then hold the Scriptures as their sole authority, but their very existence is a violation of that authority.

Is this logical at all? Am I just confused?

 

[Debi1967]

Ok I have to go soon but I will leave you with this thought to ponder on.
In my Journey through it I did not see that the Church was in line with bible and the teachings of Christ and felt that they were the ones that had fell away from the light not us. This was through many years of preconcieved notions and misconceptions.
But the consensus was not that we were wrong the wrong but in the right for splitting from the Church that no longer adhered to biblical principal. And this is what you are coming up against and why they are adamant in there beliefs against the Church. It is simply a lack of the right education for one and for two they believe they are holding up the principles set forth in the bible and from the outside looking in that you are not.

 

[Higgaion]

Some protestants seem to forget that the very entymology of their title means "those who protest". They exist because they split from the Catholic Church, creating a schism...something that is condemned, by the way, in their own scriptures and violates the will of their Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, as described in John 17.

They then hold the Scriptures as their sole authority, but their very existence is a violation of that authority.

Is this logical at all? Am I just confused?

You're right about most most Protestants not thinking much, if at all, about the "Protest" part of the word, but to answer your question, I think it is logical yes. It's my understanding that the Reformers initially wanted to do just that; reform the Roman church, not break with it. Unfortunately, their hand was forced because Rome wasn't willing to admit any kind of grave errors that needed to be fixed. Instead they anathematized and persecuted dissenters, to the point that they were actually ejected if they didn't choose to leave themselves, first. Now, this is just a matter of fact.

Not to mention that while Scripture does teach against schism and separating from a true church, it also exhorts Christians to separate from false teachers and brethren and expose their deviance, which, whether you agree or not, is what the Reformers believed they were doing.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

You're right about most most Protestants not thinking much, if at all, about the "Protest" part of the word, but to answer your question, I think it is logical yes. It's my understanding that the Reformers initially wanted to do just that; reform the Roman church, not break with it. Unfortunately, their hand was forced because Rome wasn't willing to admit any kind of grave errors that needed to be fixed. Instead they anathematized and persecuted dissenters, to the point that they were actually ejected if they didn't choose to leave themselves, first. Now, this is just a matter of fact.

Not to mention that while Scripture does teach against schism and separating from a true church, it also exhorts Christians to separate from false teachers and brethren and expose their deviance, which, whether you agree or not, is what the Reformers believed they were doing.

Assuming what you say is accurate (about Luther not wanting to split), should his followers have them re-joined the Church after the Church stopped abusing indulgences?

 

[CryptoKnight]

Assuming what you say is accurate (about Luther not wanting to split), should his followers have them re-joined the Church after the Church stopped abusing indulgences?

While I do not know all the reasons for the attempted Reformation, many Protestants think that the split was ultimately led by the Holy Spirit to proclaim a catholic (not Catholic) Church where Jesus, not the Pope, is the the head of the Church.

IIRC, Luther's Theses centered on Christ Alone, Bible Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone, to the explicit exclusion of History/Tradition and Works. I believe the exlusion of history and works is (and would have been) incompatible with the Roman Catholic Church at any point in history.

 

[stephen1964]

There is a theory that the split in the Church during the reformation was an inevidable trend in western history, like the eventual toppling of monarchies by democracy. Luther just happened to be the man of his time to do it. Once the spilt occured it was too late to repair. Right or wrong; the protestant movement had established a seperate doctrine and theology. Some of those points continue to be argued to this day (right here on CF in fact).

 

[nyj]

IIRC, Luther's Theses centered on Christ Alone, Bible Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone, to the explicit exclusion of History/Tradition and Works.

Actually, Luther's Theses centered on the abuse* of indulgences, and that's it.

Theses 91: If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

First off, this is kind of a borderline post, I'll be watching it.

Second, as far as protestants are concerned, they are no more in error than the catholic church was for kicking out the gnostics, aerinists, or any other group that was teaching false doctorine. Does the catholic church think it was violating scripture by removing these heretics?

 

[Benedicta00]

While I do not know all the reasons for the attempted Reformation, many Protestants think that the split was ultimately led by the Holy Spirit to proclaim a catholic (not Catholic) Church where Jesus, not the Pope, is the the head of the Church.

IIRC, Luther's Theses centered on Christ Alone, Bible Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone, to the explicit exclusion of History/Tradition and Works. I believe the exlusion of history and works is (and would have been) incompatible with the Roman Catholic Church at any point in history.

But the whole complaint is "On who’s authority" does he make these calls on doctrinal matters? That is why the OP asks, is it logical since the bible speaks against this?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

First off, this is kind of a borderline post, I'll be watching it.

Second, as far as protestants are concerned, they are no more in error than the catholic church was for kicking out the gnostics, aerinists, or any other group that was teaching false doctorine. Does the catholic church think it was violating scripture by removing these heretics?

Hmmm, well the Catholic Church has the authority to "kick" people out and to fight heresy.

What authority did the Protestants have for making a new Church when Jesus said the one He built wouldn't ever be overcome by the gates of Hell?

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

Your missing my point. The protestants believe THEY are the true church, becuase the RCC has adopted many heresies, and therefore THEY are the ones with the authority to clean house, not the RCC, and that THEY (as in the universal church, body of christ) is the one that hell will not prevail against, despite the RCC best efforts to the contrary.

 

[CryptoKnight]

But the whole complaint is "On who’s authority" does he make these calls on doctrinal matters? That is why the OP asks, is it logical since the bible speaks against this?

That's an easy one. From a Protestant point of view, Luther didn't remove himself, the Catholics removed themselves from the catholic church by ignoring scripture and setting the church, papacy, and tradition over the scriptures. From a Protestant perspective, Luther was not seperating from the Church (as in: Body of Christ), only from the church (a human organization). As the Catholic church deviated more and more from scripture, and as Luther stuck with sola scriptura (or whatever it is) the Catholic church removed itself from Christ's Church.

Unfortunately, since Luther was in the Catholic church, and had his revelation on the authority of scripture, he had to "level set" himself in order to realign with God's will, which meant leaving that which was seperating him from the Truth (again, as a Protestant would see it) to "rejoin" Christ's Body.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Your missing my point. The protestants believe THEY are the true church, becuase the RCC has adopted many heresies, and therefore THEY are the ones with the authority to clean house, not the RCC, and that THEY (as in the universal church, body of christ) is the one that hell will not prevail against, despite the RCC best efforts to the contrary.

No, I understood it, I'm just wondering where they think they get the authority to decide what is heresy.

 

[CryptoKnight]

No, I understood it, I'm just wondering where they think they get the authority to decide what is heresy.

By examining what the Bible proclaims versus what the RCC claims through tradition and Papal decree. Once you take the changing moods of a historic church out of the picture (i.e. the RCC), then determining what is and is not heresy becomes much easier.

Similarly, from the RCC standpoint, by listening to what the Popse says on an issue makes it easy to determine heresy. Both sides have a rather solid mechanism. The question remains: who is right?

 

[Rokedwin]

No, I understood it, I'm just wondering where they think they get the authority to decide what is heresy.

We get it from scripture...where do you get it? The Pope?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

We get it from scripture...where do you get it? The Pope?

Yes, which is also from Scripture, Matthew 16:18.

 

[CryptoKnight]

Yes, which is also from Scripture, Matthew 16:18.

So, basically, at this point we have ceased to answer the topic question of "is it logical" and have (once again) degraded into a "who is right" discussion.

Won't get solved here. Interpretation and understanding of Matthew 16:18 is the foundation upon with Catholicism stands or falls, so we must individually decide who is right. Me? I love my Catholic Brothers and Sisters and look forward to seeing them in the afterlife.

I believe the topic post has been answered. Either it has been answered by giving a Protestant argument (there is not and should not be a Catholic argument) or it was an inflammitory post in the first place, in which it should be ignored.

Either way, anyone who reads this thread will see where the Protestant logic stands on the issue.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

So, basically, at this point we have ceased to answer the topic question of "is it logical" and have (once again) degraded into a "who is right" discussion.

Won't get solved here. Interpretation and understanding of Matthew 16:18 is the foundation upon with Catholicism stands or falls, so we must individually decide who is right. Me? I love my Catholic Brothers and Sisters and look forward to seeing them in the afterlife.

I believe the topic post has been answered. Either it has been answered by giving a Protestant argument (there is not and should not be a Catholic argument) or it was an inflammitory post in the first place, in which it should be ignored.

Either way, anyone who reads this thread will see where the Protestant logic stands on the issue.

Well, lets not write off my question already...

If it comes down to interpretation of Scripture then I ask who has the traditional understanding of Matthew 16:18? And who has the 500 or so year old one.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Also, the point of my OP has not really been addressed:

Is it logical to break away from the historical, pre-existing church, when the Bible forbids schisms and then hold the Bible as your authority?

 

[CryptoKnight]

Well, lets not write off my question already...

If it comes down to interpretation of Scripture then I ask who has the traditional understanding of Matthew 16:18? And who has the 500 or so year old one.

Then I would say that the lack of a Pope for 200+ years, and the lack of a title for "Pope" Peter ought to be answer enough, as well as the many HUMAN failings of the infallible Popes.

It's not "Who got it right", it's "Constantine got it WRONG"