Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[MPaul]

So we both fouled up. Wipe the slate clean and start again. My apologies for confusing the discussion.

My apologies as well.

 

[VolRaider]

OK, no problem. May everyone disagree. The Truth is one. And from what we see in the world, the greatest beam of light seem to be the RCC. I think that the EOC and the OO had their time. I do not see much progress on them in terms of spreading around the world.

The EOC is making some progress in the U.S. - even in the South - in the form of the Orthodox Church of America. The OOs - okay, I'll give you that one. But the RCC is not the only one spreading. But RCC growth in the U.S. remains stagnant. Oddly enough, the fastest growing denomination that calls themselves Christian is the Mormon church!
While the UMC (my denomination) has decreased in the US, it has grown rapidly in Asia and Africa, especially the latter. Pretty good beacon of light if you ask me.

 

[VolRaider]

Hey, being as you have 1 billion people to fellowship with, why don't you people just focus on worshiping and serving God? Why does your focus have to be on what is wrong with Protestants? Hmmm.... is it that Protestantism has made too much sense to the world?

But remember my prior post, armies and finances from Protestant countries saved the Vatican in World War II. So think twice about getting rid of us.

Exactly, MPaul. Thanks to Japan's idiotic invasion of our navel fleet in Hawaii, we were drawn into a European war that had been dominated by the Nazis. Then came Normandy - and then it was "the end" of Nazi Germany. Europe can thank our Presbyterian president and England's Anglican prime minister for having the gumption to go full force after those goons. The RCC owes us a nice, hearty "thank you" as well.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The emphasis on the splintering of the church is grossly exaggerated. The majority of Protestants are in a limited number of denominations, and the differences between the denominations are on secondary issues. However, there is great unity on core doctrine.

The same can be said between Catholic and Protestant...but then, it depends on who you're talking to. If you ask those splinter Protestants, they'd say it was a major issue, I'd bet.

The problem with Catholic theology is that it is not truth. That is the issue -- what is truth? Truth is not determined by the Catholic perception of the unity of the church. Truth is determined by the bible.

where in the Bible does it say that it is the only place Truth is determined? Truth is Christ, and Christ is The Church. The one he founded.

So, we should believe in false theology to keep unity??? Rather let us be unified in the truth. Let us not be unified by what is false. The Reformation is a fantastic success because it rejected Holy Tradition, which is false and a delusion built on the ghost of the Roman Empire. Once free of Holy Tradition, Christians can be guided by the Holy Ghost.

It rejected Holy Tradition, and that's a good thing? To reject something that's Holy? If it's false, it ain't Holy, brother. Holy Tradition, though, is guided by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Root of Jesse]

True enough, but that reality doesn't fit with the debating points of those who are hostile to reformed Christianity.




If the Church of Rome had reformed itself, it would not have split.

So you say. The Church does reform itself on a daily basis, and yet people split from Her. That's really THEIR problem, though.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sure. Your statement about the Bible is a historical falsehood and the writing of the Bible is not a matter of Sacred Tradition at work in any case. So two zeros in one sentence.

Got any more strawmen?

Prove that it's false. The truth is that Catholic Church wrote it, and the Catholic Church compiled it, and 1400 years later, you adopted it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No seeing your Catholic you don't believe Revelations is a book about the end of times but as having already been fulfilled.........not sure how thats possible since Jesus hasn't returned yet....but what do I know

What I know is no follower of Jesus would kill another man for what he believed in the name of Christianity ("you will know them by their fruits") RING A BELL ANYONE!......both groups have history with murdering eachother, both can only be equated as in error (YOU CAN'T KILL PEOPLE AND BELIEVE YOU ARE ABIDING IN CHRIST)

You Both are very much the same in so many ways, both nolonger follow biblical guidelines for God appointed positions in the church (you make your own) nor do you follow the outline for church service, you make up your own, not to mention the complete misappropriation of monies collected, instead you've built these huge empires that exult men instead of God.

Are you trying to say that believers don't kill other humans for God's sake? When Joshua brought the Hebrews to Canaan, what did they do?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, one thing I really like about Protestantism is the separation of powers in church government. Executive office (or Pastor), legislative body (or board of elders), congregation (or Priesthood of all believers). Protestants say the Adamic nature can overtake a Christian at any time, especially those in government, but it is the job of the other branches to rein in the abuses.

We have the same separation. And we know that we're all sinners. That's what confession is all about.

The problem with Holy Tradition (besides the theory that it lends itself to abuse by those in authority), is that it is not truth. Thus, the Reformation is a great success as it moves toward the truth. Holy Tradition is not based on the bible. Its initial form is identical to what was considered divine about the Roman Empire -- the RCC just incorporated that into Christianity. Straying from truth always leads to abuse.

Name a Holy Tradition that is not truth?

At the start of the Reformation, some Protestants practiced some of the same abuse the Catholics did, but others upheld the theory of denominationalism, which won out, and which eliminated a huge amount of abuse.

One very good thing about the Reformation -- in World War II, Hitler fully intended to take over the Vatican and kill the Pope. If the Nazis had won the war, the Vatican would be an SS headquarters today. However, the significant difference in the war was the armies and money from English speaking thoroughly Protestant (at that time) societies. We made the Russian front possible with finances, and we set up a second front on the West. It was the Protestants that saved the RCC. Hmm... but should we consider that a success???

Proof that Hitler wanted to kill the Pope??? At any rate, God said His Church would prevail against all evil...

 

[Root of Jesse]

We'll have to disagree there but all is good I myself do not see a bright future for the Catholic Church, can not pin point the reason it is just a notion call it a feeling for lack of a better word.

The Church in the Southern Hemisphere is thriving very well.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It has to do with the principles used to determine what the bible is. When Moses prepared the Jews for a meeting with God, they said being in his presence was too terrifying and they asked for a spokesman, or in this case Moses. God agreed to use prophets, and he gave the people criteria for recognizing an accredited prophets. Their writings were stored in the temple. People who said they spoke for God, but who could not pass the test God gave, were to be stoned to death. God said the people only had to listen to an accredited prophet.

I've already answered the part on how the truth of the bible is determined. According to the theory of denominationalism, some of the bible is entirely clear, just using the principles of language, logic, historical circumstance, etc. Core doctrine, on which all Protestants agree, is based on what is clear. However, peripheral matters are not as clear and are subject to debate until agreement is reached.

However, I reject absolutely that we can arbitrarily pick someone to set out what is truth because otherwise there could be a lack of institutional unity. It's ridiculous. The truth is authority, not people, which is best represented by the bible, and when the words are not entirely clear on peripheral matters, it is best to go through a process of debate to discern who is correct.

PS -- by the way, Protestants do not advocate stoning those Catholics to death who act as God's spokesman in a way that does not meet the test of an accredited prophet in upholding Holy Tradition. Stoning people to death is not part of the New Covenant under Christ. However, when those people meet Christ in judgment, it does seem there is going to be a problem for them.

The only thing all Protestants agree on is Christ is Lord and the Catholic Church is wrong.
As to your statement that truth is authority, who has the authority to determine truth?? Christ and those he appointed, who were guided by the Holy Spirit.
As to your PS, you say that like the Catholic Church advocates stoning Protestants? Nope, never, no way, no how.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

All Protestant churches set out in writing core doctrine, which a person has to agree to as his/her personal beliefs in order to become a member. They are essentially the same, but there can be minor differences. The doctrine refers to the authority of the bible, the existence of the trinity, the divinity of Christ, the meaning of salvation in the blood of Christ. Hmm.... the churches all state things a little differently, but it says the same thing. A lot of churches will add other doctrine on peripheral matters as being important to their particular church, but one always finds the core, or the church is not Protestant. The core is unambiguous in the bible.

Why so many cores?
Why dont you use the RCC core and let's be together and ONE?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

There is nothing to be sad about. You have your mind too much on institutional unity. That is the focus of the Catholic church government. However, the bible refers to Christian unity as spiritual. Here is a link to one of my websites on the biblical view of Christian unity.
What Is the Non-Institutional Church?

Many people fought and died to have freedom of conscience. Be sad for that. But rejoice in the fact that unity exists as a spiritual matter, and that on peripheral issues we can debate as brothers. Never lose focus on the fact that our unity in Christ is spiritual. That is a wonderful thing. However, upholding that Christian unity must be institutional -- that is a very sad thing, and it has caused much abuse and violence.

I read and I do not agree.
And sorry, I am sad. And if you think it is me, no it is not. The Catholics feel the same, and, I tell you, the Pope feels the same.
Everytime a Protestant Church does something that sets her away from the RCC, it is a spear in our hearts.
Pray that they may be One, it was the wish of the Lord.
Tell you, it is not easy to anybody to understand the shattering of the Protestant Churches.
There are things that you are missing, for theological reasons, and that are our core: the Body and Blood of Christ, Confession, being the main ones. You miss Eucharist, you miss a lot. These are not peripheral issues.

There is no freedom of conscience if you want to follow Christ. You must be the slave of Christ, as Mary told: "Here is, I am the slave of God".

I have freedom of conscience in the RCC in the way, if I do not agree I may leave anytime. We are not prisoners of the Pope. I may leave now. BUT, if I want to be of God, I must empty myself, as St Paul said, and fill myself of the God's Grace.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Ridiculous. The core doctrine of most non-Catholic churches is salvation by grace alone, through faith. That also is the "core doctrine" of the Catholic church, but neither is by tradition. It is the fact according to God's word. There is no other "core" to be found in God's word.

We join to the faith, the works. Faith+works. Faith alone is not enough, it is empty.
Let me put the question otherwise: Then what is Tradition for you? I cant get it.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Reformation set right what had been an experiment gone wrong.

Playing with words.
Which is, in your opinion, the experiment gone wrong?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

I notice you post under the Baptist icon. I just checked google, and there are many Baptist churches' statements of faith. Here is a link to the Southwest Conservative Baptist Association as an example. Gee-- it is a statement of faith just as I described.

http://swchurchconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Church-SWCC-Statement-of-Faith.pdf

Saw the Statement.
This is, for me, Tradition.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Amen!!!

Would you help, please: what was your idea of experiment gone wrong?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

But to be fair, wasn't he just saying that Pfaffenhofen's pet argument that all Protestant churches are guided by Tradition and not by Scripture is ridiculous? Yes. And it is ridiculous.

Does not each Protestant Church have a Tradition that goes from parents to children to grandchildren and is the same along the times?
I did not see the word Tradition in the dictionary but if it is necessary I will go there.
Tradition is a set of values transmitted along generations. And every Protestant Church has it. And it is not enough to cry RIDICULOUS!. One must prove it!

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

You lose ...

What We Believe

What else ya got?

If this is not Tradition, then Tradition means what?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Your church's statement of faith is exactly what I said a statement of faith on core doctrine is about. It has positions on the bible being inerrant, the trinity, the divinity of Christ, salvation through Christ. Therefore, I win.... What else ya got?

a statement of faith on core doctrine is about.

This is what everybody calls Tradition.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Exactly, MPaul. Thanks to Japan's idiotic invasion of our navel fleet in Hawaii, we were drawn into a European war that had been dominated by the Nazis. Then came Normandy - and then it was "the end" of Nazi Germany. Europe can thank our Presbyterian president and England's Anglican prime minister for having the gumption to go full force after those goons. The RCC owes us a nice, hearty "thank you" as well.

Dont mix.
A Catholic President would do the same.
John Kennedy was for the help of Europe (which, by the way, I heartily thank), as His Father was not.
There was not Presbyterian fleet in D-Day.
I do not want to look ungrateful, but were not for Japan's Hawaii attack, would USA help Europe?
Let's finish this stupid discussion here, for I am grateful for the dead soldiers who gave their lives for the freedom of Europe. Those, the dead and wounded, are the heroes and let's not tarnish their memory.