There have always been Protestants

[Gregory Thompson]

What effect did the First Reformation have on Bible Canon?

The first reformation initially had no effect on the Bible canon, it wasn't until the late 1700's that some books were removed.

This removal of books from the bible may have been the pre-cursor as well. Since adventist theology is different than early protestant theology, this school lead to futurism, pentecostalism, and now the emergent movement, and also the currently nameless movement. The current movement always has no name.

it's really hard to find the roots of any said movement but from what I can tell it's just like the reformation except new reforms are being called for.

 

[apollosdtr]

The first reformation initially had no effect on the Bible canon, it wasn't until the late 1700's that some books were removed.

This removal of books from the bible may have been the pre-cursor as well. Since adventist theology is different than early protestant theology, this school lead to futurism, pentecostalism, and now the emergent movement, and also the currently nameless movement. The current movement always has no name.

it's really hard to find the roots of any said movement but from what I can tell it's just like the reformation except new reforms are being called for.

No wonder I can't find a church-group that I belong in.

 

[Aussie Pete]

(1) You can't put that which is being protested against... in the same category as those doing the protesting... if you want to be taken seriously.

(2) Even the definition of what it means to be born from above, and how that event occurs, is widely disputed.

(3) If like-minded people come to a conclusion, they have the free-will of God to become a denomination. If you don't like them doing it, you have the right to abstain.

1) I don't know what you are getting at.
2) The Bible is clear enough as to how to be born again.
3) No, people do not have approval from God to start denominations. Paul condemned the Corinthians for starting divisive groups. He wrote to the church in Ephesus, Corinth, Rome and so on. He did not write to a denomination. Denominations are man's idea, not God's. Truth is truth, not subject to opinion and personal interpretation.

It is possible to agree to disagree. It rarely happens, which is a consequence of religious pride and self righteousness. 30,000 denominations testify all too clearly to this. Does nobody read Psalm 133 any more? The church is a mess. It's not hard to see why.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Which absolutely points out the need for denominations.

When I find a denomination in the Bible, I will agree with you. Paul rebuked those who sought to differentiate themselves from other Christians.

 

[apollosdtr]

The problem is the definition of "church". The church is all who are born again, not just those who subscribe to a particular denomination or religious organisation. There is no Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or Pentecostal church from God's point of view.

The Inquisition and Reformation proves that to be a bad theory. If the Protestants hadn't broken away from the RCC, most of us would be dead today... instead of looking back and seeing most of their families decimated by dogma which doesn't survive the light of day.

(1) You can't put that which is being protested against... in the same category as those doing the protesting... if you want to be taken seriously.

(2) Even the definition of what it means to be born from above, and how that event occurs, is widely disputed.

(3) If like-minded people come to a conclusion, they have the free-will of God to become a denomination. If you don't like them doing it, you have the right to abstain.

1) I don't know what you are getting at.
2) The Bible is clear enough as to how to be born again.

Having had a number of discussions about how to be born from above... I'd have to say you're... very optimistic, regarding what people believe.

3) No, people do not have approval from God to start denominations.

Revelation 2 and Revelation 3.
One of those churches was called a church in name only. One church allowed Jezebel to teach them. One had false apostles and exposed them. One is the church of the open door. One was tested by the devil. One is called the seat of Satan. One left Jesus standing outside the door.

Jesus is The First Protestant.

Revelation 22:16
Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις
I Jesus have sent Mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.KJV

epi = a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:--about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).--Strong's

 

[Aussie Pete]

The Inquisition and Reformation proves that to be a bad theory. If the Protestants hadn't broken away from the RCC, most of us would be dead today... instead of looking back and seeing most of their families decimated by dogma which doesn't survive the light of day.





Having had a number of discussions about how to be born from above... I'd have to say you're... very optimistic, regarding what people believe.



Revelation 2 and Revelation 3.
One of those churches was called a church in name only. One church allowed Jezebel to teach them. One had false apostles and exposed them. One is the church of the open door. One was tested by the devil. One is called the seat of Satan. One left Jesus standing outside the door.

Jesus is The First Protestant.

Revelation 22:16
Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις
I Jesus have sent Mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.KJV

epi = a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:--about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).--Strong's

The messages to the churches in the book of Revelation were to the cities, not to different denominational groups. The command to repent was to the same churches.

I get in trouble for this, but I do not consider Roman Catholicism to be any more than a worldly organisation with a "Christian" overlay. The same could easily be said of many independent groups that claim to be protestant, evangelical or Pentecostal. The idea that God wants 30,000 different denominations is absurd. And the reasons some denominations have formed is even sillier. God sees one body, with Lord Jesus the Head. The church is universal but also local. Where I live, there are three churches in the same street. They have insignificant doctrinal differences. The world is supposed to see unity in the church. What the world sees is division, competition and selfish ambition. It's a wonder that anyone gets saved.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The term "Protestant" comes specifically from the German princes who formally protested the Second Diet of Speyer. The first Diet of Speyer had given the princes the authority to determine whether the Roman or Evangelical (Lutheran), or Reformed faith should be practiced in their realms. At the second Diet, the Holy Roman Emperor reversed this, and ordered the princes all across the Holy Roman Empire that they must follow Roman practice. This resulted in the Evangelical and Reformed princes protesting the diet. This event became known as the Protestation at Speyer, those princes who partook of the protestation became known as "the protestants".

As a consequence the term "Protestant" in England (and thus the English-speaking world) came to refer to Lutheran and Reformed Christians. Over time the term "Protestantism" grew to cover not just the Magisterial reformation movements (Lutheran and Reformed), but also the surviving Anabaptist groups. Members of the Church of England who wanted to make it more "Protestant" and less "Catholic" (who were often Reformed or at least Reformed-leaning). The English non-Conformists (Baptists, Quakers, etc). And all the various religious groups that emerged following the now-called Protestant Reformation.

In spite of what many have been led to believe, the term "Protestant" was never meant to mean "one who protests the Catholic Church"; as the "Protestants" didn't stop viewing themselves as Catholic Christians, and the Catholic Church as their Church. Instead they argued that Rome was in error, and it was Rome that was at odds with the Catholic Church. The idea that they were "protesting the Catholic Church" is a modern anachronistic reading of the history. It's not an accurate reading of the history, because it completely ignores the complex context of the period and what, exactly, these various reform and religious movements of the time were about.

However, the false narrative of a "big bad Catholic Church" as some kind of historical boogeyman gained popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, especially in the Anglosphere; such anti-Catholic sentiment helped feed ethnic and racial prejudices: Hence the Nativist Movement of the 19th century in the USA which was anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, anti-Italian (under the banner of being anti-immigrant)--which became a massive contributing factor to the rise of the KKK in the post-bellum South, along with emancipation of the slaves and Progressive Republican support for reconstruction in the South (which the Southern Democrats would fight tooth and nail, resulting in the long era of Jim Crow into the 20th century).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[concretecamper]

There have always been Protestants

Absolutely. Since the beginning, there have always been those who protest against God. It doesn't just include the protestant phenomenon.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In spite of what many have been led to believe, the term "Protestant" was never meant to mean "one who protests the Catholic Church"; as the "Protestants" didn't stop viewing themselves as Catholic Christians, and the Catholic Church as their Church. Instead they argued that Rome was in error, and it was Rome that was at odds with the Catholic Church. The idea that they were "protesting the Catholic Church" is a modern anachronistic reading of the history. It's not an accurate reading of the history, because it completely ignores the complex context of the period and what, exactly, these various reform and religious movements of the time were about.

Thank you for the history of the term 'protestant'. But it seems that the term rarely means that any more. People and groups compete with each other to be the least Catholic they can be. Some, like the Salvation Army, have zero sacraments. Some reject the Creeds. Lots of them reject each other over varieties of issues. With the exception of a few groupings within Lutheranism or Anglicanism or a few other places, it is all about NOT being Catholic. So it may be a modern anachronism but it appears to be the dominant usage.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for the history of the term 'protestant'. But it seems that the term rarely means that any more. People and groups compete with each other to be the least Catholic they can be. Some, like the Salvation Army, have zero sacraments. Some reject the Creeds. Lots of them reject each other over varieties of issues. With the exception of a few groupings within Lutheranism or Anglicanism or a few other places, it is all about NOT being Catholic. So it may be a modern anachronism but it appears to be the dominant usage.

Being in Lutheran spaces and talking with and listening to other Lutherans (from across Lutheran denominations/synods) I've observed that there has been a major push to emphasize the distinctiveness of the Lutheran tradition from "Protestantism" as a generality. Almost certainly because when someone thinks "Protestant" it doesn't look anything like Lutheranism. Also, as a Lutheran I really don't want to be associated with most of the rest of Protestantism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hvizsgyak]

The thing is, the Western Church was never really as top down as the "official" history wants us to believe. The churches had far more autonomy than we think now. The liturgies and beliefs in Gaul, the British Isles, North Africa, etc. were far more varied than we are led to believe. Cultural norms in these places put a lot of different spins on the practices of the laity, monastics, and others than we tend to think. Not to mention the various Orthodox churches, the Church of the East, etc.

Are they "Protestants" like we think of in regards to Jan Hus, Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin? No, not really. But they were also not the infallible, Pope heavy Roman church that developed in the Middle Ages. That is a fiction presented by the RCC that is not really substantiated in reality.

I didn't want to come across like the Roman Catholic Church is the true and only Church we should all be in. I highly agree with your first paragraph. Mark 9:38-40 says to me that there will be many who might not be part of the main group of believers in Jesus Christ but they are faithful to Him. Each Church had their own autonomy and there were fundamental truths that they got from the Apostles and their disciples.

Christianity gets picked apart by non-believers because of our differences and inconsistencies. And some Christian denominations exasperated the problems claiming the Roman Catholic Church is part of the anti-Christ. Why is this? Doesn't our God deserve unification of His Church after all He has done for us?

I'm not blind to the fact that certain people in the Roman Catholic Church throughout history have done bad things. Some Catholics did these terrible things intentionally while some did them because they didn't know any better. And unfortunately there are still people in the Roman Catholic Church who are causing problems for others. Our world corrupts many Catholics unfortunately.

Do I see the Unified Church structurally all Roman Catholic? No but let's let the leaders of the major Christian denominations work together to resolve our differences peacefully. And lets show the world we can be one in Christ.

Thank you for your good work here on the forum. God bless you always and in all ways.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Is there a summary?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Being in Lutheran spaces and talking with and listening to other Lutherans (from across Lutheran denominations/synods) I've observed that there has been a major push to emphasize the distinctiveness of the Lutheran tradition from "Protestantism" as a generality. Almost certainly because when someone thinks "Protestant" it doesn't look anything like Lutheranism. Also, as a Lutheran I really don't want to be associated with most of the rest of Protestantism.

-CryptoLutheran

I get it. I really do. I have to consider them as my brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes it's easy. Sometimes it's really hard.