Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

[JacksBratt]

Well it does not bother me if you view the Catholic Church as just another denomination. If you believed otherwise you would be Catholic.

The Catholic Church claims that she was personally founded by our Lord Jesus when he walked the face of the Earth. She claims that the apostles laid their hands on men to appoint them as bishops, that those bishops then laid their hands on other men, and that this has continued on down throughout history to the laying on of hands to ordain the living bishops that we have today. The claim is that the church then is the same as the church now, and has been sustained by the appointing of bishops through the laying of hands.

We can't prove the succession based on current evidence, however. As of now I think we can only go back about 500 years.

Pentecostals, Baptists, Christian Reform don't make that claim, so the Catholic Church differs in that regard.

There are some other churches such as the Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Ethiopian I think, who make the same claim. Some of these claims may be valid.

Thanks for that information.

I understand the claims that the RCC makes.. Just because they claim it.... doesn't make it truth, as we have already heard from others here.... and backed by scripture.

The RCC has views and beliefs... as do all denominations. I don't think that all Catholics hold to all of them.

However, some Catholics are, like members of all denominations... blindly ignorant of their unwavering hold on some erroneous denominational concepts.

I think that we all need to step back, get over ourselves, and respect our Christian brothers and sisters views.

No man has a monopoly on the theology of the scriptures.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well if Catholics have got it so wrong, why can't the rest of you agree on anything? Ya'll can't even agree on whether baptism saves or not. Ya'll been "studying the Scriptures" for 500 years and still can't even agree on something as basic as that.

When you hold a view where the RCC is in one pot.. and all the other denominations are in another pot and arguing with each other.. you can get a bit opinionated.

The way I see it is that all denominations are in one single pot... the pot that contains Christian denominations.. The RCC is just another one of these denominations in the same disagreements with the all the others.

It's like having a group of 10 friends.. They all agree on the concepts and ways of their lives as they grow up...

Then, one friend disagrees with another of the group.. He argues with this one person and the other 8 agree... Then.. each of the 9 start having other opinions of their own until each one of the 10 have their own views...

Does this mean that the one friend that was first disagreed with.. is a stand alone? Not at all.

Does this mean that all the friends must disrespect each other? Again, not at all.

They remain a group of friends with different views on life all with the same goal.. just holding different concepts of how to reach it.

 

[Marc Perry]

I was just recently reading an article from Catholic apologist John Martignoni, founder of the Bible Christian Society that sparked my interest. In his article he was talking about Protestantism, Church, and Authority. In his article, he pointed out that since no man is infallible, according to Protestant theology, the best possible scenario one can have in a disagreement as to what is or is not authentic Christian teaching between two God-fearing, Jesus-accepting, Bible-reading, Holy Spirit-praying men, is one man’s fallible opinion of what the Bible says vs. the other man’s fallible opinion of what the Bible says. Would non-Catholics agree this to be true?

If you answered yes, what about the church? What authority does the church have within Protestantism? If no individual within Protestantism is infallible and, therefore, no individual within Protestantism has the authority to bind any other individual to their fallible teachings..... what about the church? Is the church infallible in Protestant theology? Does the church have the authority to bind individuals to its teachings?


Since I started this thread in reference to Mr. Martignoni's article, I may refer to said article through out this discussion if you decide to participate. Thank You, and have a Blessed day

In addition to my earlier post, also check out https://www.wordofhisgrace.org/ekklesia.pdf , which argues about the biblical translation of the root word used as 'church' in most translations. I can't comment on the believably of the author, but I have seen from numerous scholarship papers that the root word used for 'church' in the New Testament does not actually mean 'church' as we use it in English. It seems to mean more 'assembly', as in the Athenians were called into an assembly to vote on an issue. This is also the way the Hebrew word for assembly was translated in the LXX (the Greek version of the old testament written in about 200 b.c.).

 

[Albion]

...I have seen from numerous scholarship papers that the root word used for 'church' in the New Testament does not actually mean 'church' as we use it in English. It seems to mean more 'assembly', as in the Athenians were called into an assembly to vote on an issue.

That IS the meaning as we most often use the word in English.

 

[Marc Perry]

That IS the meaning as we most often use the word in English.

Not necessarily. i.e. The 'Lutheran Church', 'The Baptist Church', 'The Catholic Church'. The way it seems to be used in the bible seems to mean a literal assembly, not as such an abstract idea.

 

[Albion]

Not necessarily. i.e. The 'Lutheran Church', 'The Baptist Church', 'The Catholic Church'. The way it seems to be used in the bible seems to mean a literal assembly, not as such an abstract idea.

Well, "The Lutheran Church" isn't an abstract idea, either. It's a collection of congregations AKA assemblies, exactly as you wanted the word to be understood.

And consider how common it is to have someone say, "What church do you belong to?" or "The church opposes divorce." Neither of those is saying anything that's abstract or about the building.

 

[Marc Perry]

Well, "The Lutheran Church" isn't an abstract idea, either. It's a collection of congregations AKA assemblies, exactly as you wanted the word to be understood.

And consider how common it is to have someone say, "What church do you belong to?" or "The church opposes divorce." Neither of those is saying anything that's abstract or about the building.

It wouldn't make any sense for someone to say 'The Lutheran Meeting' as a replacement for 'The Lutheran Church' in all contexts. This is especially true for the way Catholics choose to use the word, which I suspect is the reason it was translated the way it was so long ago.

 

[Marc Perry]

Well, "The Lutheran Church" isn't an abstract idea, either. It's a collection of congregations AKA assemblies, exactly as you wanted the word to be understood.

And consider how common it is to have someone say, "What church do you belong to?" or "The church opposes divorce." Neither of those is saying anything that's abstract or about the building.

A good example is Acts 19:32 , Acts 19:39 , and Acts 19:41 . All these are the same word translated as 'church' elsewhere. Mathew 16:19 is definitely not translated this way by the Catholics. Some of the authors I read suggest that Jesus meant something closer to 'gather my flock'. I'm not going to speculate on whether or not they are right, I just find it an interesting possibility.

 

[Albion]

Where this started was with your post in which you said:

...I have seen from numerous scholarship papers that the root word used for 'church' in the New Testament does not actually mean 'church' as we use it in English. It seems to mean more 'assembly'....

But in reality, the "as we use it in English" IS the same usage as is found in the New Testament. And you have just shown that to be so with those verses from Acts.

 

[Marc Perry]

Where this started was with your post in which you said:


But in reality, the "as we use it in English" IS the same usage as is found in the New Testament. And you have just shown that to be so with those verses from Acts.

A lot of times it is used to define a collection of ideas or as a body of people rather than a literal assembly. I think I could come up with some more things, but I don't feel like reading through history right now. But this conversation has really veered off course from my first post. This whole thing was supposed to be more of a side note.

 

[Albion]

But this conversation has really veered off course from my first post. This whole thing was supposed to be more of a side note.

As was my observation that, in reality, the most common use of the word by people today is to mean an assembly, not something else. That's all it was.

 

[Marc Perry]

As was my observation that, in reality, the most common use of the word by people today is to mean an assembly, not something else. That's all it was.

"The church says that ..."
This statement would make no sense if it refered to an assembly. If it did, it would need to be in the past tense since it is doubtful that, somewhere in the world, at this exact moment, there is a collection of people making this point. There is no way of knowing that. I guess it could just be an idiom from somewhere in history, but I have no idea how to find that out and it begs the question where that idiom would have come from. This statement seems to refer to a collection of ideas.

"The Lutheran church spread throughout Germany ..."
Again, not an assembly. This seems to refer to a people whose population was increasing in Germany.

It's not hard to find prolific usage of the ideas behind both these statements. The Catholic apologetics I looked at suggested there were three words used for 'church' in the New Testament and they all had different meanings. I just find it a shame that they all got lumped together into one word and lost their individual meaning. That's all. I only skimmed through peer-reviewed papers for about 30 minutes this morning and I don't want to claim that I actually know what I'm talking about on this subject. That's why I made it just a side note. It wouldn't be fair to force this point on someone whose faith is entangled with it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was just recently reading an article from Catholic apologist John Martignoni, founder of the Bible Christian Society that sparked my interest. In his article he was talking about Protestantism, Church, and Authority. In his article, he pointed out that since no man is infallible, according to Protestant theology, the best possible scenario one can have in a disagreement as to what is or is not authentic Christian teaching between two God-fearing, Jesus-accepting, Bible-reading, Holy Spirit-praying men, is one man’s fallible opinion of what the Bible says vs. the other man’s fallible opinion of what the Bible says. Would non-Catholics agree this to be true?

If you answered yes, what about the church? What authority does the church have within Protestantism? If no individual within Protestantism is infallible and, therefore, no individual within Protestantism has the authority to bind any other individual to their fallible teachings..... what about the church? Is the church infallible in Protestant theology? Does the church have the authority to bind individuals to its teachings?


Since I started this thread in reference to Mr. Martignoni's article, I may refer to said article through out this discussion if you decide to participate. Thank You, and have a Blessed day

The Church's authority is not in her infallibility, but in her faithfulness to the deposit of faith that has been received since the beginning.

The rejection of ecclesiastical infallibility is not a denial of vital importance of the Church and the historic faith and tradition of the Church down through the centuries; it is instead the rejection of the idea that any individual, or any group of people are infallible and thus whose words, statements, or ideas must be treated as above reproach. Nobody is above reproach, no person is beyond criticism.

There is no question that the many -isms spawned broadly from within what is broadly called "Protestantism" is problematic. It's obviously true that not everyone is right. It's obviously true that the disunity we see among Christians isn't right. But when Roman Catholic apologists make their answer to these problems by insisting upon the supposed infallibility of the Magisterium it amounts to little more than, "You all are wrong, and we are right", an argument fundamentally no different than the lone-wolf fundamentalist who says, "You are all wrong, and I am right" and makes his or her appeal to "just believing the Bible". No answer has been given to address anything, all that has been accomplished is the bare assertion that, "We are right, you are wrong". And we must trust this on the basis of say-so; after all, it is not as though Catholicism has some monopoly on the claim of being the ur-Church of Jesus Christ, as though the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches don't exist, with their own coterminous histories, competing claims, whose claims of historicity and apostolicity are no less valid than that made by Rome.

Even should the argument be successfully made that "Protestantism" fails because of the multitude of Protestant-isms that have accumulated since the days of the Reformation; this is a far cry from substantiating the particular claims and assertions of Catholicism. Because bare assertion and appeal to authority does not, in itself, accomplish what it asserts.

And so, what follows of course is an endless series of disputes, appeals are made to the councils, the fathers, and so on. Rome will quote such and such fathers and councils, the Eastern Churches will follow suit, and Lutherans, Anglicans, and other Protestants likewise. Making all of our appeals to the same history, the same fathers, the same councils. And so what we see here isn't entirely, or fundamentally, all that different than the many disputes and arguments over the appropriate interpretation of Scripture.

And so, of course, the wheel spins, and then there is that bare assertion of the infallible authority of the Magisterium. But why I should believe in the infallible authority of Rome's Magisterium is predicated upon accepting the authority so-claimed. And so again we return back to disputes over the fathers, the councils, and we get no where.

In the end, the claim of infallibility is functionally meaningless.

So does that render ecclesiastical authority null and void? Of course not. As though infallibility were the sole metric by which one should be able to regard the historic faith of the Church credible.

So what are we left with? If I cannot trust the infalliblity of bishops, and if I cannot trust the infallibility of Bob down the street who just "believes the Bible"; then what can I trust? Well I can put my faith into Jesus Christ, I can put my faith in the Gospel, I can put my faith in the Scriptures, I can put my faith in the Church.

I don't need the illusion of certainty afforded by the baseless claims of infallibility in order to have faith.

But I could be wrong. Yes, yes I could be wrong. So can you. The risk of being wrong is a risk that I believe is worth taking for the sake of faith. And I pray that I am never too pigheaded that I am unwilling to let myself be wrong, and to learn, and to grow.

In the end, when we stand before Him on that Last Day the only appeal we will have is Him. The One whom the Apostle calls our mediator, and the author of Hebrews calls our advocate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fidelibus]

There are so many posts in this thread that I didn't feel like reading through them all, so forgive me if someone already brought up this point.

It depends on what you define as 'church'.

The same visible, authoritative body that Jesus declared, addressing its first earthly leader,(Peter) “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). And the same (visible) Church Jesus speaks of when He recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). Also see Matt. 5:14-15, and Luke 8:16, 11:33.

I don't remember Jesus or Paul referring to the 'church' you seem to be speaking of as a physical entity.

The
Yet, Paul did speak of “one faith,” and the first great Church gathering, around the year 50 in Jerusalem, was without doubt, the manifestation of a visible Church, would you not agree? There the apostles.... the quite visible leaders of the Church, made one of the earliest universal decisions, exempting Christians from Judaic law, would you not agree?

How about the Codification of the Bible? One must agree, the bible did not codify itself, it did not (and does not) specify which books, among many, were to be seen as inspired. So I would hpe you would agree, it had to be a visible, authoritative body, comprised of bishops, that decided the content of the canon. Do you go to church on Sunday, the Lords Day? The Christian Sunday replaced the Saturday sabbath of the Old Testament. The visible Church made this change.

How about Christmas and Easter? As I'm sure you'd agree, the bible nowhere mentions the word “Christmas” or the date for Christmas. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was a decision of the Church. (The feast didn’t arise all by itself.) Much the same can be said for Easter as a feast separate from the other Sundays which commemorate the Resurrection. It was a visible Church, headed by a definitely locatable pope, that settled the dates of observance for these two key feasts. And finally, something Protestant and Catholics alike use and agree on every single day...... the calendar! It is Christ’s visible Church, its reach extending into the secular realm, which has given us the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory XIII.

It was more about being part of the body of Christ, which the believers are able to enter through the forgiveness of sins by grace.

Do you own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (CCC) For the Catholic Church's teachings of the Body of Christ, see....."The Church-Body of Christ: The Church is communion with Jesus. Chapters 787- 791." If you do not, its online.

But if you mean the physical 'church', Paul sometimes criticized the churches he founded. So he definitely didn't think they were infallible.

Could you please give the book,chapter, and verse that this is based on?

Also, Peter was the one who denied Christ three times. So the 'rock' that Jesus founded his church on, according to the Catholics, was suggestively not infallible.

This is a common misunderstanding, particularly among Bible Christians and Fundamentalists that often confuse the charism of papal infallibility with impeccability. IOW, the notion that
the pope cannot sin. Or others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due. Which is exactly what infallibility is not. I highly recommend reading Vatican 2's explanation of infallibilty. (Lumen Gentium 25).


Sorry about not getting back to you sooner.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Marc Perry]

The same visible, authoritative body that Jesus declared, addressing its first earthly leader,(Peter) “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). And the same (visible) Church Jesus speaks of when He recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). Also see Matt. 5:14-15, and Luke 8:16, 11:33.


The
Yet, Paul did speak of “one faith,” and the first great Church gathering, around the year 50 in Jerusalem, was without doubt, the manifestation of a visible Church, would you not agree? There the apostles.... the quite visible leaders of the Church, made one of the earliest universal decisions, exempting Christians from Judaic law, would you not agree?

How about the Codification of the Bible? One must agree, the bible did not codify itself, it did not (and does not) specify which books, among many, were to be seen as inspired. So I would hpe you would agree, it had to be a visible, authoritative body, comprised of bishops, that decided the content of the canon. Do you go to church on Sunday, the Lords Day? The Christian Sunday replaced the Saturday sabbath of the Old Testament. The visible Church made this change.

How about Christmas and Easter? As I'm sure you'd agree, the bible nowhere mentions the word “Christmas” or the date for Christmas. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was a decision of the Church. (The feast didn’t arise all by itself.) Much the same can be said for Easter as a feast separate from the other Sundays which commemorate the Resurrection. It was a visible Church, headed by a definitely locatable pope, that settled the dates of observance for these two key feasts. And finally, something Protestant and Catholics alike use and agree on every single day...... the calendar! It is Christ’s visible Church, its reach extending into the secular realm, which has given us the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory XIII.



Do you own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (CCC) For the Catholic Church's teachings of the Body of Christ, see....."The Church-Body of Christ: The Church is communion with Jesus. Chapters 787- 791." If you do not, its online.



Could you please give the book,chapter, and verse that this is based on?



This is a common misunderstanding, particularly among Bible Christians and Fundamentalists that often confuse the charism of papal infallibility with impeccability. IOW, the notion that
the pope cannot sin. Or others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due. Which is exactly what infallibility is not. I highly recommend reading Vatican 2's explanation of infallibilty. (Lumen Gentium 25).


Sorry about not getting back to you sooner.

Have a Blessed Day!

It's been awhile since I made that post and I don't really remember whats going on in this thread, but I'll try to give you something.

You are looking at it from a very Catholic mindset. Which is ok, but protestants view it differently. When you talk about 'keys', you can probably understand how it can seem pretty obscure when just looked at through the context of scripture. So they have their own take on it as being something about faith. So the 'church' is a more abstract idea about people bound together by faith. Catholics are also part of the protestant 'church', too. Other than faith, I think most protestants would see accepting the Nicene creed as a requirement, but it is rarely talked about in that context.

 

[garee]

Well if Catholics have got it so wrong, why can't the rest of you agree on anything? Ya'll can't even agree on whether baptism saves or not. Ya'll been "studying the Scriptures" for 500 years and still can't even agree on something as basic as that.

I would think because our agreement as two walking together as one must be with our unseen Father in heaven who lovingly commands us to study in order to seek his approval .

If we try and make our Father in heaven into a man confusion can come. Like when did the body of Christ, His eternal bride begin ? With Abel in whom God had grace on as the first martyr sent with the gospel and murdered by his faithless brother Cain? The father of lies is a murderer from the beginning. That would seem to be his first. Abel's blood cries longing to be clothed with the incorruptible out just as Stephens .

 

[Fidelibus]

You are looking at it from a very Catholic mindset.

Yes, I am Catholic.

Which is ok, but protestants view it differently.

Yet, would you agree, being there are many many different Protestant/non-denominational churches, with just as many beliefs, their views may not be consistent with each others?

When you talk about 'keys', you can probably understand how it can seem pretty obscure when just looked at through the context of scripture. So they have their own take on it as being something about faith.

Yes, as I mentioned above, being there are many many different Protestant/non-denominational churches, with just as many beliefs, their views may not be consistent with each others. Or as you put it...." So they have their own take on it as being something about faith." In which I have to ask, which of these different Protestant/non-Denominational churches are teaching Scripture truthfully and in context, and which one is not? And by who's or what authority would they rely on to decide?

As far as the Key's given to Peter, for the Catholic Church's view, I will let the CCC explain:

Catechism of the Catholic Church/ Second Edition/ Paragraph 553:

"553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."

So the 'church' is a more abstract idea about people bound together by faith. Catholics are also part of the protestant 'church', too.

Well, let's see......to summon up, in Protestant theology, would you agree there is not a person, Pastor, lay person, or Church in all of Protestantism that is infallible, correct?

Which brings me to ask, would you agree that Jesus did found the church?

And doesn’t the Bible also say the church is the Body of Christ?

Other than faith, I think most protestants would see accepting the Nicene creed as a requirement, but it is rarely talked about in that context.

Are you aware of the origin or the Nicene Creed?


Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Marc Perry]

Yes, I am Catholic.



Yet, would you agree, being there are many many different Protestant/non-denominational churches, with just as many beliefs, their views may not be consistent with each others?



Yes, as I mentioned above, being there are many many different Protestant/non-denominational churches, with just as many beliefs, their views may not be consistent with each others. Or as you put it...." So they have their own take on it as being something about faith." In which I have to ask, which of these different Protestant/non-Denominational churches are teaching Scripture truthfully and in context, and which one is not? And by who's or what authority would they rely on to decide?

As far as the Key's given to Peter, for the Catholic Church's view, I will let the CCC explain:

Catechism of the Catholic Church/ Second Edition/ Paragraph 553:

"553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."



Well, let's see......to summon up, in Protestant theology, would you agree there is not a person, Pastor, lay person, or Church in all of Protestantism that is infallible, correct?

Which brings me to ask, would you agree that Jesus did found the church?

And doesn’t the Bible also say the church is the Body of Christ?



Are you aware of the origin or the Nicene Creed?


Have a Blessed Day!

So the 'church' I was referring to, in the protestant mindset, is different than denominations that you seem to be referring to. In the Lutheran church, which is what I was raised in and the first 'protestants', there was widespread disagreement and discussion among the different founders and different places of worship around Germany. It wasn't until after they were all dead that a state leader, a lord I think, requested a common doctrine due to mounting pressure from the Catholic church, which was creating an excuse for a wanted war among the European powers.

But even though they held different doctrines at the founders time, they considered themselves one 'church'. There was no such thing as 'Lutheranism' or 'Protestantism' at that time. They preferred to be called 'Christian'. What they felt united them as a 'church' had nothing to do with doctrine, and they definitely didn't feel like any of their founders were infallible or even right on all issues. It was about the faith I talked about in my earlier post. The thing about the Nicene creed had nothing to do with who made it or who ratified it. They didn't care. They just happened to agree with the Nicene council's definition of 'faith' and thought it was what Jesus taught ... long before any of the church fathers came along.

The only one who was infallible was Jesus, according to the earlier Lutherans. Even though they talked 'Sola Scriptura', this really had more to do with skepticism over the history of the Catholic church than the way many protestant denominations view it today. The founders were well versed in the early church and did take what they had to say seriously. They especially loved Augustine, and Augustine's doctrines are at the heart of much of today's protestant theology. They just thought that different church fathers said different things, so they worked hard to reconcile the differences by ultimately leaning on the earliest testament of Christianity, which was the bible. On top of that, since they believed that no person or body was infallible other than Jesus, they weren't willing to just take a church father's 'word for it' because of their status and demanded well reasoned arguments on every issue. Not even Augustine was exempt from that.

For example, probably the most hotly debated issue was about the Eucharist. It was never agreed upon until that lord asked them to, as I mentioned, and in the end they ended up using Luther's version that came from Thomas Aquinas. Luther was seen as a kind of rebel rock star among the Germans, so they ended up using a lot of his ideas in the common doctrine just because it would be easier to unite the Germans around it.

Another example is the Canon. They didn't take the early churches word on that either, and seriously reexamined what should be included. The reason Revelation comes last in the bible is because they thought it was useless and didn't believe it was actually written by John the Apostle. They wanted to take it out, but it was a well known book to the very superstitious medieval population, so instead they stuck it at the end of the new testament to show its low status. It's a similar story for Hebrews, James, Jude, and of course, the Apocrypha.

Outside of the people in Germany, the next biggest reformer was Calvin, who I think was born in France. They all talked with each other and didn't consider themselves a different denomination and definitely not a different 'church'. But, in a lot of ways, Calvin's teaching was different. And they were ok with that. Calvin didn't believe his words were 'divinely inspired', and spread his ideas to the people more in the fashion that an old church father would do. Not because he was absolutely convinced he was correct, but in order to help build up the Christian theology. So, when you say 'Who is your leader ..', it wasn't viewed like that. It was seen as continuing in the spirit of the church fathers ... who didn't agree on everything or think they were perfect, but were willing to develop and share ideas.

 

[Fidelibus]

So the 'church' I was referring to, in the protestant mindset, is different than denominations that you seem to be referring to. In the Lutheran church, which is what I was raised in and the first 'protestants', there was widespread disagreement and discussion among the different founders and different places of worship around Germany. It wasn't until after they were all dead that a state leader, a lord I think, requested a common doctrine due to mounting pressure from the Catholic church, which was creating an excuse for a wanted war among the European powers.

But even though they held different doctrines at the founders time, they considered themselves one 'church'. There was no such thing as 'Lutheranism' or 'Protestantism' at that time. They preferred to be called 'Christian'. What they felt united them as a 'church' had nothing to do with doctrine, and they definitely didn't feel like any of their founders were infallible or even right on all issues. It was about the faith I talked about in my earlier post. The thing about the Nicene creed had nothing to do with who made it or who ratified it. They didn't care. They just happened to agree with the Nicene council's definition of 'faith' and thought it was what Jesus taught ... long before any of the church fathers came along.

The only one who was infallible was Jesus, according to the earlier Lutherans. Even though they talked 'Sola Scriptura', this really had more to do with skepticism over the history of the Catholic church than the way many protestant denominations view it today. The founders were well versed in the early church and did take what they had to say seriously. They especially loved Augustine, and Augustine's doctrines are at the heart of much of today's protestant theology. They just thought that different church fathers said different things, so they worked hard to reconcile the differences by ultimately leaning on the earliest testament of Christianity, which was the bible. On top of that, since they believed that no person or body was infallible other than Jesus, they weren't willing to just take a church father's 'word for it' because of their status and demanded well reasoned arguments on every issue. Not even Augustine was exempt from that.

For example, probably the most hotly debated issue was about the Eucharist. It was never agreed upon until that lord asked them to, as I mentioned, and in the end they ended up using Luther's version that came from Thomas Aquinas. Luther was seen as a kind of rebel rock star among the Germans, so they ended up using a lot of his ideas in the common doctrine just because it would be easier to unite the Germans around it.

Another example is the Canon. They didn't take the early churches word on that either, and seriously reexamined what should be included. The reason Revelation comes last in the bible is because they thought it was useless and didn't believe it was actually written by John the Apostle. They wanted to take it out, but it was a well known book to the very superstitious medieval population, so instead they stuck it at the end of the new testament to show its low status. It's a similar story for Hebrews, James, Jude, and of course, the Apocrypha.

Outside of the people in Germany, the next biggest reformer was Calvin, who I think was born in France. They all talked with each other and didn't consider themselves a different denomination and definitely not a different 'church'. But, in a lot of ways, Calvin's teaching was different. And they were ok with that. Calvin didn't believe his words were 'divinely inspired', and spread his ideas to the people more in the fashion that an old church father would do. Not because he was absolutely convinced he was correct, but in order to help build up the Christian theology. So, when you say 'Who is your leader ..', it wasn't viewed like that. It was seen as continuing in the spirit of the church fathers ... who didn't agree on everything or think they were perfect, but were willing to develop and share ideas.

Thank you Marc for this post on the history of the different churches within Protestantism, which I'd hope you would agree, is a very short history compared to the two thousand plus year history of the Catholic Church, that was founded by Jesus Christ.

I also couldn't help but notice you didn't address a couple of questions I asked in my last post. You probably just forgot, so I will re-post them:

1."Would you agree that Jesus did found the church?"

2."And doesn’t the Bible also say the church is the Body of Christ?"

If you don't mind, I also would like to ask you (or any other Protestant/ non-Denominational/ Bible Christian poster) another question. Is there any church within all of Protestantism, whose opinion about matters of doctrine you would accept as being authoritative over and above your own private interpretation?


Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

Thank you Marc for this post on the history of the different churches within Protestantism, which I'd hope you would agree, is a very short history compared to the two thousand plus year history of the Catholic Church, that was founded by Jesus Christ.

Well, no. The history of most denominations (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and many others included) is of a non-denominational church of the first several centuries (often called "the undivided church") which split into two, then three, parts (RC, OO, and EO) and then those parts split again, with the most important of these later splits being the churches of the Protestant Reformation.

In short, the main Christian divisions have a common ancestry, even if the various parts sometimes like to talk as though it is theirs alone with all the others branching off from them!