Did they really reform anything?
Hardly a dozen.But protestantism eventually snowballed into changes of doctrines among thousands of different competing ideologies, each at odds with and often condemning the others.
If the schism of 1054 was a splitting of Christianity- yes, the "protestant reformation" was a complete splintering of the Body of Christ.The Reformation began as a protest (hence protest-ant, protestant) against the abuses of the Roman Church. Those abuses were quite real, and were addressed by the Council of Trent.
But protestantism eventually snowballed into changes of doctrines among thousands of different competing ideologies, each at odds with and often condemning the others.
I am quite sure you are talking about various protestant churches, but I was responding to "thousands of different competing ideologies, each at odds with and often condemning the others"I can name a dozen off the top of my head. You might want to Google that.
When you get it right the first time, as the ancient Eastern churches did, you don't have to reform anything.I am not sure that anyone would seriously debate that the Reformers did, in fact, not reform the church. Their influence even spawned the counter-reformation, which was also arguably very good for the Roman Catholic Church. Many believe that some of the reformers went too far, many others argue that they did not go far enough.
But there was most certainly a Reformation of the Western Church starting around 1517. Of course there were reform efforts beforehand, but they did not gain enough traction to last past their suppression except for small pockets. There were other reform efforts that stayed within the church, but they were also for different issues and at different time periods.
Practically all basic reformation requirements are applicable to eastern church as to roman church.When you get it right the first time, as the ancient Eastern churches did, you don't have to reform anything.
I am quite sure you are talking about various protestant churches, but I was responding to "thousands of different competing ideologies, each at odds with and often condemning the others"
So, you got 2.One example of that is the charismatic groups among Pentecostals who teach that if a person does not speak in tongues they are not truly baptized. By teaching that they condemn all the other groups who do not speak in tongues. Then there are "seventh day" groups that claim that going to Church on Sunday is the mark of the beast. Ive seen their billboards. Guess what happens to people who accept that.
I think the point would be stronger if you did not have to go to the far edges of Protestantism--and much later in time than the start of the Protestant movement--in order to find some examples of what you were looking for. One of the churches you cite here isn't even considered to be Protestant by many classifiers.One example of that is the charismatic groups among Pentecostals who teach that if a person does not speak in tongues they are not truly baptized. By teaching that they condemn all the other groups who do not speak in tongues. Then there are "seventh day" groups that claim that going to Church on Sunday is the mark of the beast. Ive seen their billboards. Guess what happens to people who accept that.
Did they really reform anything?
So, you got 2.
And one of those 2 - SDA - are not a reformation church, they do not have connection to european protestant reformation.