Protestant 'weak' in church history prior the reformation?

[Jesusthekingofking]

I found that many protestant can't articulate the church history prior the reformation, hence to them they are kinda of anti tradition, their tradition is depends on their denomination. The stuff that they'll read or the leaders they will listen is also narrow down to within the denomination. As a protestant myself I doubt what I been taught is correct, because they are so many preacher in the protestantisms can't even agree among themselves, and protestant has a disdain feeling on the catholic and eastern orthodox which in reality these 2 are the sister church and the saints are the genuine member of the body of Christ.

 

[Tolworth John]

a protestant myself I doubt what I been taught is correct, because they are so many preacher in the protestantisms can't even agree among themselves

So what are you doing to check what you have been taught?

If you know pre reformation church history, what do you do to correct your minister when he states incorrect historical information?

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

So what are you doing to check what you have been taught?

If you know pre reformation church history, what do you do to correct your minister when he states incorrect historical information?

It's not about historical information. Ignorance about history of the church might blind one to believe the wrong thing. They hate the roman Catholic Church without really open to understand them.

 

[Athanasius377]

I found that many protestant can't articulate the church history prior the reformation, hence to them they are kinda of anti tradition, their tradition is depends on their denomination. The stuff that they'll read or the leaders they will listen is also narrow down to within the denomination. As a protestant myself I doubt what I been taught is correct, because they are so many preacher in the protestantisms can't even agree among themselves, and protestant has a disdain feeling on the catholic and eastern orthodox which in reality these 2 are the sister church and the saints are the genuine member of the body of Christ.

I am sure there is some of what you describe but I think it has more to do with the lack of interest in history in the US more than anything. Actually, I left the Roman church precisely because I read the history. What I found was a church that had innovated and created doctrine yet stating loudly it was in accord with the unanimous witness of the early church and the Early Church Fathers. What I would do is read for yourself. Check out the site New Advent for writings of the early Church. And if you can find it for a reasonable price, check out JND Kelley's work, "Early Christian Doctrines" and/or Jaroslav Pelikin's 5 volume work, "The Christian Tradition". And the next time you read a quote from an ECF, go to New Advent and look it up and see if its context and says what the author states or if its been cherry picked as a proof text having ignored its context and authors intent.

I've seen posts like this from folks who are ready to cross the Tiber. As most Roman Churchman will tell you, there's the RCC the exists in theory and then there is RCC as it exists on the ground. And having had experience in the church of Rome I can tell you that on just about any theological issue I share far more agreement with someone who is Lutheran or Reformed than does believing Roman Churchman with members of his/her own church.

 

[Tolworth John]

It's not about historical information. Ignorance about history of the church might blind one to believe the wrong thing. They hate the roman Catholic Church without really open to understand them.

Actually it is.
Your own words, " you doubt what you were taught! " Either what you were taught is correct or it is not.
That you doubt is due to your ignorance.


There is nothing wrong with having doubts, but there is wrong in not doing something about it.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

I am sure there is some of what you describe but I think it has more to do with the lack of interest in history in the US more than anything. Actually, I left the Roman church precisely because I read the history. What I found was a church that had innovated and created doctrine yet stating loudly it was in accord with the unanimous witness of the early church and the Early Church Fathers. What I would do is read for yourself. Check out the site New Advent for writings of the early Church. And if you can find it for a reasonable price, check out JND Kelley's work, "Early Christian Doctrines" and/or Jaroslav Pelikin's 5 volume work, "The Christian Tradition". And the next time you read a quote from an ECF, go to New Advent and look it up and see if its context and says what the author states or if its been cherry picked as a proof text having ignored its context and authors intent.

I've seen posts like this from folks who are ready to cross the Tiber. As most Roman Churchman will tell you, there's the RCC the exists in theory and then there is RCC as it exists on the ground. And having had experience in the church of Rome I can tell you that on just about any theological issue I share far more agreement with someone who is Lutheran or Reformed than does believing Roman Churchman with members of his/her own church.

You wrote,
".. it has more to do with the lack of interest in history.."
- Good point..
- I agree.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I found that many protestant can't articulate the church history prior the reformation, hence to them they are kinda of anti tradition, their tradition is depends on their denomination. The stuff that they'll read or the leaders they will listen is also narrow down to within the denomination. As a protestant myself I doubt what I been taught is correct, because they are so many preacher in the protestantisms can't even agree among themselves, and protestant has a disdain feeling on the catholic and eastern orthodox which in reality these 2 are the sister church and the saints are the genuine member of the body of Christ.

The problem I have with Catholicism, apart from doctrinal issues, is the arrogant assertion that they alone are the true church. I've read "An Introduction to the History of Christianity", edited by Tim Dowley. There are at least 50 contributors, apparently experts in their various specialisations. There is nothing in it that makes me want to repent and become a Catholic. Far from it.

The only criteria for being a member of the Body of Christ is that you be born again. I've met born again Catholics and unsaved Baptists. The difference is that Baptists do not pretend that you are born again if your parents are and you go to church when you are old enough to decide.

If you add up the differences that divide Protestants and subtract them from what unites them, you will find that there is far more unity than division. The problem is that Protestants find it near impossible to agree to disagree. Any small disagreement turns into a nuclear level dispute and hence yet another denomination. It's tragic, futile and counterproductive. While Christians argue, the world is tightening restrictions on preaching against attitudes and practices contrary to God's word. God's blessing is where there is unity. (Psalm 133). How long before a preacher goes to prison for preaching against homosexuality? Years? Months? Weeks? Days?

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

The problem I have with Catholicism, apart from doctrinal issues, is the arrogant assertion that they alone are the true church. I've read "An Introduction to the History of Christianity", edited by Tim Dowley. There are at least 50 contributors, apparently experts in their various specialisations. There is nothing in it that makes me want to repent and become a Catholic. Far from it.

The only criteria for being a member of the Body of Christ is that you be born again. I've met born again Catholics and unsaved Baptists. The difference is that Baptists do not pretend that you are born again if your parents are and you go to church when you are old enough to decide.

If you add up the differences that divide Protestants and subtract them from what unites them, you will find that there is far more unity than division. The problem is that Protestants find it near impossible to agree to disagree. Any small disagreement turns into a nuclear level dispute and hence yet another denomination. It's tragic, futile and counterproductive. While Christians argue, the world is tightening restrictions on preaching against attitudes and practices contrary to God's word. God's blessing is where there is unity. (Psalm 133). How long before a preacher goes to prison for preaching against homosexuality? Years? Months? Weeks? Days?

Intesting, you convert from Catholic to protestant? Do you read the reformation history?

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

Actually it is.
Your own words, " you doubt what you were taught! " Either what you were taught is correct or it is not.
That you doubt is due to your ignorance.


There is nothing wrong with having doubts, but there is wrong in not doing something about it.

I have to always doubt and test, it's a way of life. When I was young I accept and trust the teachers. But what if my teachers are wrong? Now I'm an adult I must check back what I were taught.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Intesting, you convert from Catholic to protestant? Do you read the reformation history?

No. My only exposure to Christianity was Anglicanism. It was enough to put me off for life. Thank God He is bigger than the Church of England and the gospel far more powerful. I do know something of the history of the Reformation. It also has some dark aspects.

 

[Albion]

I found that many protestant can't articulate the church history prior the reformation, hence to them they are kinda of anti tradition, their tradition is depends on their denomination. The stuff that they'll read or the leaders they will listen is also narrow down to within the denomination. As a protestant myself I doubt what I been taught is correct, because they are so many preacher in the protestantisms can't even agree among themselves, and protestant has a disdain feeling on the catholic and eastern orthodox which in reality these 2 are the sister church and the saints are the genuine member of the body of Christ.

You have a point, and it features Protestants who don't want to know anything about Church history, saying that it's only the word of God that matters to them, etc. etc. or else only want to know Bible history.

And this is counterbalanced by Catholics and some other Protestants who do know more about Church history and do refer to it, but in their case it's just the revisionist history that their denomination has created in order to "show" that 1) theirs is the one and only church that Christ meant to create, 2) it has never ever changed its beliefs...and other such historical myths.

So all in all, the problem is part of the general tendency of people to think that history doesn't matter unless it can be made to look like it supports whatever the person wants to believe.

 

[Valletta]

The problem I have with Catholicism, apart from doctrinal issues, is the arrogant assertion that they alone are the true church. I've read "An Introduction to the History of Christianity", edited by Tim Dowley. There are at least 50 contributors, apparently experts in their various specialisations. There is nothing in it that makes me want to repent and become a Catholic. Far from it.

The only criteria for being a member of the Body of Christ is that you be born again. I've met born again Catholics and unsaved Baptists. The difference is that Baptists do not pretend that you are born again if your parents are and you go to church when you are old enough to decide.

If you add up the differences that divide Protestants and subtract them from what unites them, you will find that there is far more unity than division. The problem is that Protestants find it near impossible to agree to disagree. Any small disagreement turns into a nuclear level dispute and hence yet another denomination. It's tragic, futile and counterproductive. While Christians argue, the world is tightening restrictions on preaching against attitudes and practices contrary to God's word. God's blessing is where there is unity. (Psalm 133). How long before a preacher goes to prison for preaching against homosexuality? Years? Months? Weeks? Days?

All Catholics are born again through the sacrament of Baptism. The Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old.

 

[Albion]

All Catholics are born again through the sacrament of Baptism. The Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old.

Was it your intention there to give us examples of the points I labelled as 1) and 2) in my post #11?

 

[Francis Drake]

I found that many protestant can't articulate the church history prior the reformation, hence to them they are kinda of anti tradition, their tradition is depends on their denomination. The stuff that they'll read or the leaders they will listen is also narrow down to within the denomination. As a protestant myself I doubt what I been taught is correct, because they are so many preacher in the protestantisms can't even agree among themselves, and protestant has a disdain feeling on the catholic and eastern orthodox which in reality these 2 are the sister church and the saints are the genuine member of the body of Christ.

You have obviously fallen under the spell that says catholic historians are the source of truth.

 

[atpollard]

All Catholics are born again through the sacrament of Baptism. The Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old.

Does that include these Catholics that received the sacrament of Baptism:

• Dean Arnold Corll
  
• Dennis Nilsen
  
• John Wayne Gacy
• Judy Buenoano
• Myra Hindley
• Peter Manuel
• Peter Sutcliffe
• Peter Tobin
• Rodney Alcala
• Timothy McVeigh

 

[Valletta]

Does that include these Catholics that received the sacrament of Baptism:

• Dean Arnold Corll
  
• Dennis Nilsen
  
• John Wayne Gacy
• Judy Buenoano
• Myra Hindley
• Peter Manuel
• Peter Sutcliffe
• Peter Tobin
• Rodney Alcala
• Timothy McVeigh

Every Christian who is legitimately baptized, Catholic or non-Catholic, is born again. As per the Bible, we are saved through Baptism and continue to be saved.

 

[atpollard]

Every Christian who is legitimately baptized, Catholic or non-Catholic, is born again. As per the Bible, we are saved through Baptism and continue to be saved.

All of those Serial Killers were baptized as Catholic infants ... is being a mass murderer one of the Fruit of the Spirit that I missed?

God saves people.
Water Baptism makes babies (and adults) wet.
One should never confuse the work of God for the work of men.

 

[Valletta]

All of those Serial Killers were baptized as Catholic infants ... is being a mass murderer one of the Fruit of the Spirit that I missed?

God saves people.
Water Baptism makes babies (and adults) wet.
One should never confuse the work of God for the work of men.

God gives us the gift of free will. Being saved is not a one time event like some stay-out-of-hell card. I suppose that concept is quite alluring, but it goes against the Bible.
1 Peter 3:20-21
20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, RSVCE

 

[Aussie Pete]

You have a point, and it features Protestants who don't want to know anything about Church history, saying that it's only the word of God that matters to them, etc. etc. or else only want to know Bible history.

And this is counterbalanced by Catholics and some other Protestants who do know more about Church history and do refer to it, but in their case it's just the revisionist history that their denomination has created in order to "show" that 1) theirs is the one and only church that Christ meant to create, 2) it has never ever changed its beliefs...and other such historical myths.

So all in all, the problem is part of the general tendency of people to think that history doesn't matter unless it can be made to look like it supports whatever the person wants to believe.

In many ways history is irrelevant. Often, it is an account of where Christians or those claiming to be Christians have gone wrong. Sticking to God's word is far safer than following the traditions of men. My thoughts are that the major denominations are fossilised revivals. God's word is complete, but not our understanding. So various doctrines have been progressively restored to the church. For example, the Priesthood of all believers, governance by elders, the authority of the Bible and adult baptism by full immersion.

The tragedy is that each time a truth was restored a division was created. And very often those who accepted restored truth were persecuted. The only reason to study that history is in order to avoid making the same mistakes. As as been said, history proves that we learn nothing from history. The church is just as divided and divisive as ever.

 

[Aussie Pete]

God gives us the gift of free will. Being saved is not a one time event like some stay-out-of-hell card. I suppose that concept is quite alluring, but it goes against the Bible.
1 Peter 3:20-21
20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, RSVCE

Wrong. And right. There is the initial, eternal and irreversible born again experience. That gives the believer all the rights and responsibilities of being a Christian. Then there is the progressive salvation of the soul. That means deliverance from wrong thinking (renewal of the mind), being controlled by emotions rather than principle and deliverance from self will. It's a lifetime process but it cannot start until the individual is born again. Eternal rewards and kingdom placement are determined by the degree to which the believer allows his soul to be saved (better thought of as delivered). Eternal destiny is decided if and when an individual is born again.