Why I'm discontent with my Protestantism

[FireDragon76]

Say what?

They've actually had indulgences in Orthodoxy, though they were never as widespread as a practice and were eventually rejected altogether. A great deal of the use of indulgences seems brought on by appropriation of certain elements of Latin theology in the 16th-18th centuries.

But that's not what caused the Great Schism of 1054. Most historians credit emerging differences between East and West in terms of cultural expression of Christianity.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

They've actually had indulgences in Orthodoxy, though they were never as widespread as a practice and were eventually rejected altogether.

But that's not what caused the Great Schism of 1054. Most historians credit emerging differences between East and West in terms of cultural expression of Christianity.

False doctrine created the controversy, whether it be indulgences or any numerous other.
In Him

 

[FireDragon76]

False doctrine created the controversy, whether it be indulgences or any numerous other.
In Him

A great deal of it was simply ethnic tensions between Franks and Greeks which lead to the development of different religious cultures.

 

[FenderTL5]

Prove it.

the "schism" over indulgences in the west.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

the "schism" over indulgences in the west.

Was Orthadoxy affiliated with Catholicism, or not? Yes, it was. I'll consider any evidence you wish to provide from God's word. Other than that, history speaks for itself.

In Him

 

[Albion]

False doctrine created the controversy, whether it be indulgences or any numerous other.
In Him

Well, now that we have ruled out indulgences as the cause of the schism, which of those numerous other causes do you consider responsible for having created the Great Schism of 1054?

 

[Just_a_Christian]

A great deal of it was simply ethnic tensions between Franks and Greeks which lead to the development of different religious cultures.

False doctrine is false doctrine. Dress it up however one wishes. Orthadoxy was affiliated with Catholicism up until approximately the 11th century.
In Him

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Well, now that we have ruled out indulgences as the cause of the schism, which of those numerous other causes do you consider responsible for having created the Great Schism of 1054?

Which one would you like to converse about. There's many to choose from.
Oh, and BTW you may rule out indulgences as being the last straw, I sir, have not!!!!
In Him

 

[Sketcher]

Yes, but if you read my other post, that can be problematic. The New Testament leaves a lot of gaps that need to be filled in with assumptions, and depending on what tradition you draw your assumptions from, another tradition may appear to contradict it, or not.

I'm not sure which other post you are referring to, or which gaps you are referring to.

What was wrong with Cyril of Alexandria?

He politically rigged the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius, who likely didn't believe the heresy he was charged with, and who wanted to be careful about not over-elevating Mary. I believe in the Hypostatic Union, but if we're going to have faith that the Holy Spirit would guide a council, you don't need to rig it and start it before a large contingent of bishops arrives to participate. That contingent of bishops by the way, excommunicated him.

 

[Albion]

False doctrine is false doctrine.

I know, but there are a number of false doctrines. Which one was responsible for the Great Schism if it was not indulgences? You identified a specific cause in the beginning of this; at this point we are interested to know which one should have gotten the blame now that that one has been ruled out. In your opinion, of course.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

I know, but there are a number of false doctrines. Which one was responsible for the Great Schism if it was not indulgences? You identified a specific cause in the beginning of this; at this point we are interested to know which one should have gotten the blame now that that one has been ruled out. In your opinion, of course.

It does not matter, in the least, to me which false doctrine initiated or concluded the separation of Catholicism and Orthadoxy. They were both one and the same doctrinally untill the great schism of 1054. If you wish to argue semantics about which false doctrine did what, find someone else. False doctrine carried on the horse is as equally sinful as that carried on the wagon. It makes zero difference on the end result, does it? If, on the other hand, you wish to discuss Godly matters from His written word. I'm your guy.
In Him

 

[FenderTL5]

Was Orthadoxy affiliated with Catholicism, or not?

At the time that indulgences split the church? No. That was your claim and it is entirely false.

I'll consider any evidence you wish to provide from God's word. Other than that, history speaks for itself.

I see.
You want me to provide to you evidence from the New Testament, which was penned in the first century, of historical events taking place a thousand years afterwards. Even more in the case of the Reformation.
Obviously, historical time-lines are not your strong suit.

 

[Albion]

It does not matter, in the least, to me which false doctrine initiated or concluded the separation of Catholicism and Orthadoxy.

I see. It's just that when you checked into this discussion it did matter to you.

 

[Halbhh]

There are great reasons to become an apostolic Christian, so that should be easy enough for you to get there.

Friendly question: aren't all Christians that follow the teachings in the Epistles by Peter, James, John, and Paul...well, apostolic?

Another friendly question (these are sincere, real questions) -- how do you yourself see the word "catholic"? What does it mean?

I've thought of the word 'catholic' to mean universal -- meaning all of us Christians together. In short, all Christians that follow what is in the New Testament with faith -- loving their fellow believers -- all such are 'catholic' of course!

So, to me the word 'catholic' represents "Love One Another" in action (and I realize that only those that 'love one another' even have a chance also).

To be 'catholic' one must embrace all their brothers and sisters in love. Else one is not there yet. Of course then there are some 'catholics' in the Catholic church, just as in other churches.

 

[Mary Meg]

I'm not sure which other post you are referring to, or which gaps you are referring to.

I linked it in the OP:

Scripture vs. History

 

[twin.spin]

Happy Easter! He is Risen!

So this is really long, sorry about that, and more emotional than I really meant for it to be. But this is my heart. Go easy on me, ok?

He is risen indeed!

About the Reformation. As you are probably familiar with, there were three people mostly considered the fathers of the Reformation: Luther - Calvin -Zwingli

In 1529 Luther and Zwingli came face to face in the city of Marburg, Germany for a discussion. This meeting is known as the Marburg Colloquy. Other than the differing of approach to a Reformation:

• Zwingli advocated the Reform could be carried out using political force
• Luther, on the other hand, did not believe that a reform of the Church could be accomplished by political force but only by the Gospel

the two also had this difference in philosophy:

• Zwingli held that revelation and reason could not contradict
• Luther understood that God’s revelation in Holy Scripture often contradicts human reason

So then the basic divide between the two of the three roots of the Reformation shows up in theological terms, which in 1529 the two differed in 1 of 15 points, was:

• Zwingli and his colleagues argued that the bread and wine only “signify” or “represents” Jesus’ body and blood
• Luther and his colleagues countered an argued that the words of Jesus, with which He instituted the Lord’s Supper, clearly teach "is". Christ’s words must stand as they are revealed to us in Holy Scripture. “Is” cannot be turned into something else.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

At the time that indulgences split the church? No. That was your claim and it is entirely false.
I see.
You want me to provide to you evidence from the New Testament, which was penned in the first century, of historical events taking place a thousand years afterwards. Even more in the case of the Reformation.
Obviously, historical time-lines are not your strong suit.

I've studied secular history. I have also been a student of God's word much longer. God's word is the most accurate historical document man has available, by far. Do you contend otherwise? As to what I want you to do, I don't care what you do but if you want me to consider anything concerning the church you will need to go by the instrument provided by God. I could not care less if east west split just before or just after the doctrine of indulgences. Furthermore, it makes zero difference to me whether or not Orthadoxy split from Catholicism or Visa versa. All that matters to me is that the apostle Paul made it known the apostasy would occur in 2nd Thessalonians.
In Him

 

[Just_a_Christian]

I see. It's just that when you checked into this discussion it did matter to you.

Not above God's word, it didn't. Secular history simply reinforces what God's word states.
In Him

 

[Mary Meg]

He is risen indeed!

About the Reformation. As you are probably familiar with, there were three people mostly considered the fathers of the Reformation: Luther - Calvin -Zwingli

In 1529 Luther and Zwingli came face to face in the city of Marburg, Germany for a discussion. This meeting is known as the Marburg Colloquy. Other than the differing of approach to a Reformation:

• Zwingli advocated the Reform could be carried out using political force
• Luther, on the other hand, did not believe that a reform of the Church could be accomplished by political force but only by the Gospel

the two also had this difference in philosophy:

• Zwingli held that revelation and reason could not contradict
• Luther understood that God’s revelation in Holy Scripture often contradicts human reason

So then the basic divide between the two of the three roots of the Reformation shows up in theological terms, which in 1529 the two differed in 1 of 15 points, was:

• Zwingli and his colleagues argued that the bread and wine only “signify” or “represents” Jesus’ body and blood
• Luther and his colleagues countered an argued that the words of Jesus, with which He instituted the Lord’s Supper, clearly teach "is". Christ’s words must stand as they are revealed to us in Holy Scripture. “Is” cannot be turned into something else.

 

[Mary Meg]

Friendly question: aren't all Christians that follow the teachings in the Epistles by Peter, James, John, and Paul...well, apostolic?

Not in the sense that I used that word, no.

Another friendly question (these are sincere, real questions) -- how do you yourself see the word "catholic"? What does it mean?

I've thought of the word 'catholic' to mean universal -- meaning all of us Christians together. In short, all Christians that follow what is in the New Testament with faith -- loving their fellow believers -- all such are 'catholic' of course!

It means, as you say, "universal" -- but your understanding of that word is not the historical understanding. Historically it meant "everybody in agreement with one another in matters of doctrine and practice" -- and that agreement was manifest by churches being in communion with one another. And I don't think you can claim that your idea of "universal" is the same thing by any stretch.

Jesus prayed that "we all might be One" (John 17:21), and Paul insisted that we should "all be in the same mind and judgment" (1 Cor 1:10). And it's just not true that "all Christians who follow what is in the New Testament" are "in the same mind and judgement," about much of anything.