Was the Protestant split from Rome ever justified?

[Mountainmike]

I think for this season ALL of us should focus not on what divides us,but on what unites us: a love of our Lord, and the celebration of his coming.

 

[sparow]

People can use a good thing the wrong way, even doing this in order to make something good look bad. If people get into division, it is because of their own nature being divisive.

Jesus said there would be division because of Him. And Jesus is good ! ! ! It is not His fault how worldly people have taken Him the wrong way.

Now, in case people get away from a wrong group, then they need to do things the right way, not just start another wrong way.

I personally find that Jesus and the Bible give me more and better than what I have been getting from both Roman Catholic and Lutheran ministry; so what they do is not relevant . . . if neither one gives as much good as God shares.

So, if they both have been less than the ministry of God through Jesus and the Bible, then the one leaving the other was not doing all which could have been done. And so . . . going back together would not be doing all which God has been doing.

While the question on the surface seems simple it really is complex. If evil is divided nothing is achieved; if good is divided from evil something is achieved. As I understand the reformation half of the Papal Priesthood left the Church and took their laity with them; so the laity followed the Priest and not the Church.

Jesus wants His people divided from the world. Jesus does not want His people divided on doctrine; If His people used the OT and the teaching of Christ as their doctrine His people would find no reason or excuse to abrogate the Law; this is why Jesus taught only the Father has authority and only Jesus is the teacher.

As for churches being under a single administration or world order that is not what God requires. Of course there is one administration under God, but not one Church; If Jesus wanted one Church He wouldn't have sent His messages to the seven churches, instead He would have sent one message to the Church in Jerusalem.

 

[JellyQuest]

No, it's not in the history books. guess your reading comprehension skills could use some improvement.

really .. ? ... " Pope Leo X: A scion of the powerful Medici family of Florence, Leo had his talents and was a patron of the arts but is remembered most for his lavish spendthrift habits in the years he was pope, between 1513 and 1521. His emptying of the Vatican's coffers led to various measures to create more revenue, which included the sale of indulgences — in effect, guarantees of relief from damnation in the afterlife.... "

guess my reading skills aren't to bad huh . amazing what you find when you don't automatically accept the denial and out right lies from those who refuse to see the errors of the ones they mistakenly have their faith in .

 

[Mountainmike]

But then, Catholics don't " have faith in popes", they have faith in Our lord Jesus Christ.

And popes are no better than any other person, nor do they claim to be so, they are people, people are flawed, they will answer for what they did. Just as adherents of whatever your version of " truth" , will answer for that too,

When it came to the church speaking on the practice of paid indulgencies it was condemned at the council of Trent

Meanwhile Protestant abuse of scripture is disgraceful, via the provably false doctrine of. " sola scriptura" used to empower "the greatest scandal, every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" ( quote Luther) because the biblically false " priesthood of all believers" are not empowered to make it up as reformers suggested -

The reformers divorced scripture from its meaning handed by tradition ( paradosis, handing down)to which apostle Paul tells you to " hold true"
As a result the reformers launched 50000 schisms. Indeed some denominations allow individual pastors to decide the truth, worse still individuals to decide the "truth", or they added their own manmade tradition with " confessions" and " articles"

Since the reformed churches now believe in every combination of several mutually exclusive versions of Eucharist, baptism, clergy, liturgy, other sacraments, salvation, sexual morality, divorce, LGBT - you name it they disagree on it, and if you don't like it you form yet another schism and denomination, now 40000 and counting, not to mention the millions of one person "denominations" NONE of them have the truth, simple logic shows that. Because They all disagree and truth is unique.


Because truth needs the interpretation of scripture carried by tradition and authority, and as evidenced in early fathers, That's what Catholicism has done since earliest times, and that is why the doctrine has remained essentially unchanged for two millennia, and is why it is " the pillar of truth, the householdof god". That's why catholic sexual morality and sanctity of life has held, whilst the other denominations all drift into populism. Truth does not bend with convenience or pleasure as Protestants think.

Sure the oak tree , differs somewhat from the acorn, and sapling but it is the same species. And sure it has its share of bad people. Jesus came to call sinners.

But Jesus promised his church would be one, and that the gates of hell would. Not prevail against it. So the idea of a millennium apostasy is unbiblical apart from untrue. So none of the upstarts since 1500 can have any claim to be the church.


Reality is the reformers didn't want to abolish the pope at all, they all wanted to BE the pope of their own quasi Christianity. But UNLIKE Peter, and his descendants, none were called to do that, the message to all of them is that their house is divided and cannot stand.

really .. ? ... " Pope Leo X: A scion of the powerful Medici family of Florence, Leo had his talents and was a patron of the arts but is remembered most for his lavish spendthrift habits in the years he was pope, between 1513 and 1521. His emptying of the Vatican's coffers led to various measures to create more revenue, which included the sale of indulgences — in effect, guarantees of relief from damnation in the afterlife.... "

guess my reading skills aren't to bad huh . amazing what you find when you don't automatically accept the denial and out right lies from those who refuse to see the errors of the ones they mistakenly have their faith in .

 

[JellyQuest]

But then, Catholics don't " have faith in popes", they have faith in Our lord Jesus Christ.

And popes are no better than any other person, nor do they claim to be so, they are people, people are flawed, they will answer for what they did. Just as adherents of whatever your version of " truth" , will answer for that too,

When it came to the church speaking on the practice of paid indulgencies it was condemned at the council of Trent

Meanwhile Protestant abuse of scripture is disgraceful, via the provably false doctrine of. " sola scriptura" used to empower "the greatest scandal, every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" ( quote Luther) because the biblically false " priesthood of all believers" are not empowered to make it up as reformers suggested -

The reformers divorced scripture from its meaning handed by tradition ( paradosis, handing down)to which apostle Paul tells you to " hold true"
As a result the reformers launched 50000 schisms. Indeed some denominations allow individual pastors to decide the truth, worse still individuals to decide the "truth", or they added their own manmade tradition with " confessions" and " articles"

Since the reformed churches now believe in every combination of several mutually exclusive versions of Eucharist, baptism, clergy, liturgy, other sacraments, salvation, sexual morality, divorce, LGBT - you name it they disagree on it, and if you don't like it you form yet another schism and denomination, now 40000 and counting, not to mention the millions of one person "denominations" NONE of them have the truth, simple logic shows that. Because They all disagree and truth is unique.


Because truth needs the interpretation of scripture carried by tradition and authority, and as evidenced in early fathers, That's what Catholicism has done since earliest times, and that is why the doctrine has remained essentially unchanged for two millennia, and is why it is " the pillar of truth, the householdof god". That's why catholic sexual morality and sanctity of life has held, whilst the other denominations all drift into populism. Truth does not bend with convenience or pleasure as Protestants think.

Sure the oak tree , differs somewhat from the acorn, and sapling but it is the same species. And sure it has its share of bad people. Jesus came to call sinners.

But Jesus promised his church would be one, and that the gates of hell would. Not prevail against it. So the idea of a millennium apostasy is unbiblical apart from untrue. So none of the upstarts since 1500 can have any claim to be the church.


Reality is the reformers didn't want to abolish the pope at all, they all wanted to BE the pope of their own quasi Christianity. But UNLIKE Peter, and his descendants, none were called to do that, the message to all of them is that their house is divided and cannot stand.

and yet they did it and went along with it -so in light of the OP question . YES the split was is and always will be fully justified and the most correct move any one can ever make .
in 2014 they made sounds about not doing it or promoting a works salvation any more -and along with these echoing noises they called for reconciliation
we ,the non roman catholics, say yes to reconciliation . -Come out of that man made institution founded falsey on peter and be reconciled to the body of Christ whose head is JESUS alone and NONE other .
cast off your mary worship and your abominations of idolatry and join us in worshiping JESUS ONLY . - no problem .

 

[Mountainmike]

But then several things have always been true
1/ we don't worship Mary,
2/ we don't teach salvation by works
3/ Protestants refuse to study what we do believe, preferring their own caricature
4/ those that do study the early fathers and Catholicism convert back to it- literally thousands of theologians and pastors have put that testimony out in books and videos. Study them.The better qualified they are, the more likely they are to come back to Rome.
5/ sola scriptura was the provably false doctrine that launched 40000 schisms

The usual anti catholic myths prevail.
**yawn**

and yet they did it and went along with it -so in light of the OP question . YES the split was is and always will be fully justified and the most correct move any one can ever make .
in 2014 they made sounds about not doing it or promoting a works salvation any more -and along with these echoing noises they called for reconciliation
we ,the non roman catholics, say yes to reconciliation . -Come out of that man made institution founded falsey on peter and be reconciled to the body of Christ whose head is JESUS alone and NONE other .
cast off your mary worship and your abominations of idolatry and join us in worshiping JESUS ONLY . - no problem .

 

[samir]

really .. ? ... " Pope Leo X: A scion of the powerful Medici family of Florence, Leo had his talents and was a patron of the arts but is remembered most for his lavish spendthrift habits in the years he was pope, between 1513 and 1521. His emptying of the Vatican's coffers led to various measures to create more revenue, which included the sale of indulgences — in effect, guarantees of relief from damnation in the afterlife.... "

guess my reading skills aren't to bad huh . amazing what you find when you don't automatically accept the denial and out right lies from those who refuse to see the errors of the ones they mistakenly have their faith in .

Did you find that on the Internet? There is a ton of anti-catholic garbage online but you won't find any of it in reputable history books. If you care about truth, you should learn how to find better sources of information.

 

[DennisTate]

There are impending changes to Lutheran and some other Protestant denominations doctrine during 2017 that could lead to the end of Protestantism as we know it. This you tube speaks for two hours on the changes to Lutheran doctrine to bring Lutherans back to Catholicism:

Was Protestantism ever justified?

This is a good thing in many ways but don't forget how God personally
raised up adversaries to King Solomon and his son King Rehoboam in the form
of King Jereboam.

It was the errors of King Solomon that led to this punishment.....
and the flaws in the practices of the Popes led to God working out something
similar.

 

[sparow]

This is a good thing in many ways but don't forget how God personally
raised up adversaries to King Solomon and his son King Rehoboam in the form
of King Jereboam.

It was the errors of King Solomon that led to this punishment.....
and the flaws in the practices of the Popes led to God working out something
similar.

Revelation is an account of the final "Day of the Lord", A few of these are recorded in the OT; the Day of the Lord seems to be in full swing.

 

[JoeP222w]

I already explained that just because a church uses the word "Catholic" in its name does not mean that they are a split from the Catholic church.

Not as an absolute rule, no. Nonetheless, those I listed are divisions from the Roman Catholic church. Of course those who support Rome will simply write them off and say they are not. But history demonstrates otherwise.

 

[JoeP222w]

There has existed "one" church for 2000 years that has never changed its core beliefs

And that is not Roman Catholicism.

Show from primary sources an early church father that believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or Mary's perpetual virginity, or Indulgences and Purgatory.

Protestantism has over 20000 different sects with most of them contradicting each other out of existence.

Prove it from primary sources.

 

[JoeP222w]

James' epistles are considered universal that is general and not to specific audience about specific problems;

James 1:1-2 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings. (2) Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,

Clearly this is addressed to believers in Jesus Christ (note the use of "my brothers"). This is not addressed to all people everywhere (believers and unbelievers).

Even so, Paul taught a different Gospel to Christ and Christ's disciples, i.e. Paul presents Jesus as a Pagan God of the Roman ilk, Paul's Gospel is about Christ; Paul teaches the way failed, make a new way.

Demonstrate this from scripture. Most especially how Paul presents "Jesus as a Pagan God of the Roman ilk" and "Paul teaches the way failed, make a new way."

 

[bcbsr]

You must be circumcised and follow the law; not to be saved but as a perquisite to salvation. There is circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart; in the OT these go hand in hand; there is the Law and there is entering into the covenant; it is possible to be circumcised in the flesh but no circumcised in the heart and it is possible to keep the Law with out entering into the covenant.

Your statement is contradictory. For you say that to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses is both a condition for salvation and not a condition for salvation. Typical of the Neo-Circumcision that has plagued the Christian community.

 

[sparow]

James 1:1-2 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings. (2) Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,

Clearly this is addressed to believers in Jesus Christ (note the use of "my brothers"). This is not addressed to all people everywhere (believers and unbelievers).



Demonstrate this from scripture. Most especially how Paul presents "Jesus as a Pagan God of the Roman ilk" and "Paul teaches the way failed, make a new way."

Clearly, you say; I find that amusing. As you have quoted: James 1:1-2 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings. (2) Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds.

To the twelve tribes in dispersion; in other words, to Israel not to gentiles unless they have accepted the covenant.

I rejected Paul about 35 years ago when I first read the NT, but it is hard to disprove Paul from scripture; that is one cannot prove a negative hypothesis. Yet I found this recently, and the author is a PhD theologian and professor:

http://www.barriewilson.com/pdf/Taking-Paul-at-His-Word.pdf

 

[sparow]

Your statement is contradictory. For you say that to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses is both a condition for salvation and not a condition for salvation. Typical of the Neo-Circumcision that has plagued the Christian community.

It should surprise you to find out that Moses never owned the Law, it has always been Gods Law and it has always been the covenant. The word of God in the OT said the Law was perfect (subject to interpretation/translation) and in the NT the same word who became flesh, Jesus, said the Law is not a burden. If you believe the Law is something you shouldn't touch, you need to ask yourself who is it you depend on for your salvation

 

[bcbsr]

It should surprise you to find out that Moses never owned the Law, it has always been Gods Law and it has always been the covenant. The word of God in the OT said the Law was perfect (subject to interpretation/translation) and in the NT the same word who became flesh, Jesus, said the Law is not a burden. If you believe the Law is something you shouldn't touch, you need to ask yourself who is it you depend on for your salvation

I trust in the Lord Jesus to save me. What about you, are you trusting in yourself that you will be a good enough person as measured by the Law to be saved? Or are you trusting in the Lord Jesus to save you?

 

[victorinus]

I trust in the Lord Jesus to save me. What about you, are you trusting in yourself that you will be a good enough person as measured by the Law to be saved? Or are you trusting in the Lord Jesus to save you?

the real question is -
can Jesus trust you to do the right thing?
what can you do to prove that you can be trusted?

 

[sparow]

I trust in the Lord Jesus to save me. What about you, are you trusting in yourself that you will be a good enough person as measured by the Law to be saved? Or are you trusting in the Lord Jesus to save you?

This is a trick question, I am not sure what you want to know; I am not sure what you mean by "trust in the Lord Jesus". I am still wrestling with angels; I believe I am saved but God requires more from me. I strongly suspect that I am no trusting in the manner you have in mind.

Quoting from a Pentecostal 70 to 90 years ago.

" In short, there is not a single heresy, a single vagary, fanaticism, or even an occasional sin that cannot be commended by some scripture quotation......before the "eternal security of the believer" can be honestly settled, the following Scriptures must be equally honestly and effectually disposed of, and not merely ignored or irrelevantly dismissed; or, what is worse, made void altogether by the traditions of the older, and by the wisdom of the newer generations.

James 5:19-20 (NKJV)
19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back,
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

James knew who was a brother, who was a "mere false professor." Well James speaks to brethren, and says that one among them may fall from grace, and be in danger of the second death; the remedy here is not a reliance upon the fact that such a one cannot be finally lost.

One cannot simply trust Jesus to save one when correction is required

 

[Ringo84]

There are impending changes to Lutheran and some other Protestant denominations doctrine during 2017 that could lead to the end of Protestantism as we know it. This you tube speaks for two hours on the changes to Lutheran doctrine to bring Lutherans back to Catholicism:

Was Protestantism ever justified?

Yes.

But ultimately, I don't think it matters whether you call yourself a Catholic, a Baptist, a Methodist, or a member of any other Protestant denomination. It's all the same Christianity, aside from some theological differences. It's the same God, it's the same Bible (for the most part), it's the same basic doctrines ("For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", Jesus died and rose again). Beyond that, I really don't see how it matters all that much.
Ringo

 

[sparow]

Yes.

But ultimately, I don't think it matters whether you call yourself a Catholic, a Baptist, a Methodist, or a member of any other Protestant denomination. It's all the same Christianity, aside from some theological differences. It's the same God, it's the same Bible (for the most part), it's the same basic doctrines ("For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", Jesus died and rose again). Beyond that, I really don't see how it matters all that much.
Ringo

It is hard to understand how important things are; we have been desensitised. Saying we all worship the same God is a trap; some Christians say Christians worship the same God as Islam which is not true; many Christians do not know who they worship apart from names. Sin is not the issue; being in covenant with God is the issue; it is the covenant that solves the sin problem.