The Protestant Reformation: Were its Doctrines Inspired?

[ErikJohnson]

Hey Faded—

Regarding your previous post concerning Sola Scriptura—there’s definitely some agreement here. I don’t dispute your point that the LDS position vis-à-vis doctrines that divide Protestants and Catholics are really “option C.” You’re certainly right that there are important distinctions in the details. And to a large extent, I think that once Joseph Smith denied the Triune God of the Christian Faith—all other points of comparison became superficial. But despite known and fundamental differences—I still think it’s reasonable to make a comparison of doctrines like “Spirit Prison” and Purgatory and of the Five Solas and to ask whether the LDS teaching is “better aligned” with the Catholic or Protestant view. (Although judging from the relative lack of interest in the thread—not many LDS here agree or find it worthwhile to make such comparisons.)

But I’m not sure you’re appreciating the distinction I made between Reformation doctrines and the outcomes of the Reformation, or its “achievements.” My analogy to Brigham Young’s achievement of founding SLC, which so deeply offended bytor2112, apparently didn’t resonate with you either. You keep reiterating what the Reformation accomplished (e.g., expansion of literacy and broad dissemination of the Bible), rather than the doctrines the Reformers actually taught. And somewhat off-topic, you’re adamant that Protestants don’t agree on the Five Solas and that some teach Faith = Belief + Works. For that claim, I would encourage you to do some research and see if you can provide links to substantiate it. Start with the largest of the mainline Protestant organizations (the SBC) and work your way down the list. You’ll discover there’s much more unity here than you think.

Near the bottom of your last post, you make the following statement that seems to agree with the point of my OP—

Protestantism all too often tended to throw the baby out with the bath water doctrinally. Often, there was a general concept that was right, but severely distorted. Protestantism threw the distorted version out and called it false doctrine. In so doing, they lost some things.

From an LDS point of view—what you say makes complete sense to me. The doctrines themselves were not inspired (tossing the baby out with the bathwater). Rather, they should be seen as providing a means to an end, setting the stage for the LDS “restoration.” To call the Reformation itself inspired is misleading. It merely substituted one error for another, and as you say, “lost some things” along its way. The Reformation itself was inspired only in the sense that it served as a catalyst for certain outcomes, or as you say, achievements.

Now to put the shoe on the other foot—imagine I told an LDS audience I thought Joseph Smith was inspired of God. That would please the room, right? But supposing I followed up by saying his core doctrines, his claims to authority, etc. were false, or at least flawed. LDS would see this as a contradiction, would they not?. They’d argue that since he was inspired, it follows that the doctrines he taught were inspired. And they’d rightfully wonder what I meant by saying he was inspired to begin with. And if I went on to say that despite his false teachings, I believed Joseph Smith was inspired because of Mormonism’s achievements (e.g., investing in educational institutions, encouraging/enabling European emigration to the US, settling the Utah Territory, making it impossible to get a decent mixed drink at a bar in that state)—they’d think I’d missed the point or was being disingenuous. And they’d be right.

That’s pretty much how it seemed to me when I’d hear LDS say that the Reformation was inspired. To say the Reformation was inspired while saying it promoted false and flawed doctrines is contradictory. (Unless, as LDS poster Maxel suggested on the other thread, there was a brief historical window where Sola Scriptura and the other doctrines were in fact, true doctrine. To his credit, Maxel’s approach does implicitly acknowledge and resolve the contradiction—although it is highly problematic in other ways.)

Can you see my point?

--Erik

[Faded]

Essentially, the hangup you keep coming back to: If the Protestant Reformation produced false doctrine, then calling it inspired is contradictory. Fair enough. We feel that the Protestant Reformation occurred to bring about the purposes of God. The Reformers had many excellent teachings and truths, but they were not a direct dispensation of eternal knowledge from God. As such, we fully expect that they would make mistakes. Let's be frank, it is absolutely impossible for every teaching of the Protestant Reformation to be true because the varying different Protestant movements directly contradict one another on a very long list of teachings. It was God's doing to change the world sufficiently to make the Restoration possible. It was God's will that the Bible no longer be withheld from mankind. It was God's doing to get mankind looking to Him for answers and understanding rather than relying entirely upon the Roman Catholic Church for absolutely everything.

The following are conclusions and assertions found within the Protestant Reformation movements that we agree with:

1.) Rejection of the sale of indulgences.

2.) The greater focus on an individual relationship with God.

3.) Rejection of the reverence and worship of Mary.

4.) Rejection of the practice of praying to Saints.

5.) Rejection of the practice of keeping everything in Latin.

6.) Lesser dependance upon confession, greater dependence upon reconciling with God directly.

7.) Less complexity to the process of worshipping God. More of a common-sense approach.

8.) Rejection of infant Baptism.

9.) Separation of Church and State and the rejection of enforcing a State Religion by force.

10.) Rejection of the practice of celibacy among the Priesthood.

11.) Rejection of the belief in transsubstantiation.

12.) Rejection of the reverence of holy relics.

13.) Rejection of the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church in general.

14.) Acceptance of the Biblical writers as the last (aka most recent) authoritative recipients of the will and word of God on Earth.

15.) Rejection of the bulk of all ritualism practiced by the Catholic Church.

The list goes on and on. Not every Protestant denomination accepts each of those things, but the point is that the Reformation is the beginning point to change on these issues.

Erik, can you answer my question then? Why do Protestant faiths stop short of completely denouncing the Catholic Church? Doing anything less than that is fence-sitting. Essentially, they are willing to accept the Catholic Church as the true "Body of Christ" passed down from the Apostles, yet they reject the Catholic Church and separate themselves from it. So is the Catholic Church right or is the Catholic Church wrong? Protestant denominations seem to like to have it both ways. How does that make any sense?

The number one point you have focussed on in virtually all posts, and you're primary reasoning for absolute rejection of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the Trinity. This is one of the aspects of fence sittting that I'm talking about. Protestants seem quite happy to claim that "By Scripture Alone," yet the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible. It is one possible interpretation of the Scriptures, but the Bible is never definitive enough to establish the Trinity as an absolute. If Protestantism can merrily reject a large list of long-held doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church, how can they hold the Trinity to be an absolute truth that can never ever be questioned no mattter what?? If the Catholic Church was wrong about so many other things, why can't they be wrong about the Trinity?

Lastly, does Protestantism reject the Catholic Church or don't they?

[Faded]

But use your position to destroy a privately owned printing press…--Erik

Are you talking about this printing press:

Book of Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

W. W. Phelps publisher of the book, ran a press in Independence, Missouri. A faithful Mormon, Phelps also edited an historically important Mormon periodical, The Evening and Morning Star from September 1831 to July 1833. Most revelations in the Book of Commandments were previously published by Phelps in the Star.

The title page of the book reads "Book of Commandments, for the government of the Church of Christ, organized according to the law on the 6th of April, 1830. / ZION: published by W. W. Phelps & co. / 1833."

On July 20, 1833 an anti-Mormon and pro-slavery mob destroyed the press. The mob, purportedly frightened of Mormon political power, was incensed by an editorial in Phelps' Evening and Morning Star perceived to be abolitionist. Breaking down the door, they razed Phelps' home and business in less than an hour. At that point, 65 revelations of the Book of Commandments, about two thirds the total, were already printed. Totaling 160 pages, most of the uncut and unbound sheets were destroyed in the ensuing fire. However, some neighbors including teenage sisters Caroline and Mary Elizabeth Rollins[1] saved remnants of nearly 100 copies.

LDS.org - Sunday School Chapter Detail - Establishing Zion in Missouri

The mob next seized Bishop Edward Partridge and Charles Allen. They were taken to the public square in Independence and commanded to renounce the Book of Mormon and leave the county. Bishop Partridge said, “I told them that the Saints had suffered persecution in all ages of the world; that I had done nothing which ought to offend anyone; that if they abused me, they would abuse an innocent person; that I was willing to suffer for the sake of Christ; but, to leave the country, I was not then willing to consent to it.”

With this refusal, the men were stripped of their outer clothing and their bodies were covered with tar and feathers. Bishop Partridge observed, “I bore my abuse with so much resignation and meekness, that it appeared to astound the multitude, who permitted me to retire in silence, many looking very solemn, their sympathies having been touched as I thought; and as to myself, I was so filled with the Spirit and love of God, that I had no hatred towards my persecutors or anyone else

Or are you talking about this printing press:

Nauvoo Expositor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nauvoo Expositor was a newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois that published only one issue, which was dated June 7, 1844. The Expositor was founded by several disaffected associates of Joseph Smith, Jr., some of whom claimed that Smith had attempted to seduce their wives in the name of plural marriage.

The bulk of the Expositor's single issue was devoted to criticism of Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement and the mayor of Nauvoo. After two days of consultation, Smith and the Nauvoo city council voted on June 10, 1844 to declare the paper a public nuisance, and ordered the paper's printing press destroyed.[1] The town marshal carried out the order that evening.[2] These actions generated considerable disturbance, and culminated in Smith's assassination by a vigilante group while he was in legal custody and awaiting a trial in nearby Carthage.

Since the events there has been much discussion as to whether the council's actions were legal insofar as the law would have been contemporarily understood. In any event, whether or not the council's actions were strictly legal, there is general agreement among historians that the press's destruction escalated the continuing conflict between the Mormon community and their critics, leading ultimately to Smith's assassination.

Let's take a moment to compare and contrast these two cases where a printing press was destroyed.

The Destructions of W W Phelps printing pressing in 1833:

1.) Phelps' printing press was destroyed by an illegal mob who broke a lot of laws in the process.

2.) LDS leaders were tarred and feathered and considerable property other than the printing press was destroyed. They burned W W Phelps home and business to the ground.

3.) The Mob was guilty of breaking and entering, assault and destruction of property and violation of freedom of speech.

4.) There was no legal or legitimate process even attempted by the Missouri Mob.

5.) No member of the Missouri Mob would ever be brought to justice nor penalized in any way for the destruction of the printing press nor any subsequent actions.

6.) The fact that the government of Missouri and the United States turns a blind eye to this event sets a common-law precendent that, at minimum, destruction of an offending printing press is fair game.

7.) Consistent in both cases, the destruction of the printing press was the starting point for completely inhuman and illegal actions taken against the "Mormons" by their enemies. Apparently, if somebody destroys a printing press, it's a cue to start assaulting, robbing, raping and murdering Mormons. I'm not sure why that makes sense, but that certainly is the way history played out in both cases. Ironically, it didn't matter who did the destroying, the same form of violence against "the Mormons" resulted.

8.) Clearly, the laws of the United States are good enough to punish "Mormons" but they're not good enough to protect them.

The Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor Printing Press in 1844:

1.) The legally constituted and recognized government authorities deliberated about the possibility of destroying the Nauvoo Expositor and it's printing press for two days. Since the power of the Nauvoo city council was explicitly equal to the power of the State of Illinois (but only within Nauvoo of course) there would have been no need to appeal to the State govenment.

2.) The reasoning behind shutting down the Nauvoo Expositor was based upon the opinion that the Nauvoo Expositor existed for the sole reason of inciting prejudice and hatred against the Saints. It was believed that leaving the Expositor in place would only lead to chaos and violence. So the stated reason for shutting down the Expositor is to keep the peace. Obviously, that backfired.

3.) The City Council of Nauvoo felt that they had adequate legal precedent for the action. The legality of the action is questionable. The Law of the Land as constituted in Illinois in 1844 can be convincingly argued either way. Obviously, the action would be seen as a violation to the US Constitution today, but since the destruction of Phelps' printing press in 1833 was fine and well, then one would assume that the same would be true of Nauvoo Expositor.

4.) After the Nauvoo City Council determined that the Nauvoo Expositor was a public nuissance, the city marshall (an officer of the law) carried out the order. No breaking and entering, etc. All formality of legal process was preserved.

5.) The actions against the Nauvoo Expositor were perfectly legal at best and highly questionable at worst. On the other hand, there is absolutely no way to argue that the actions against Phelps and his property were legal.

6.) Following in the tradition of the 1833 incident, the destruction of this printing press leads to one of the greatest overreactive responses in US History:

----The Mayor and 15 members of the city council are arrested.

----All those who were not released on bond were to be taken to Carthage Illinois, a known hot spot for Anti-Mormon violence.

----Joseph Smith and several others went to Carthage after Governor Ford promised that they would be protected and that he (Ford) would personally stay in Carthage to further ensure Smith's protection.

----Once Joseph Smith and his companions were securely inside Carthage Jail, Governor Ford promptly left town, went off to Nauvoo. Fords message to Nauvoo? "You brought this on yourselves!"

---- The militia pretending to be there to protect Joseph Smith surrenders to and then joins with the mob. They storm the jail, killing Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith and severely injuring John Taylor.

7.) Once again, none of the Anti-Mormon criminals are every brought to trial. No real effort to seek justice for these murders is ever undertaken by the State of Illinois.

8.) The Latter Day Saints are subsequently driven out of the State of Illinios -- another illegal action -- and deprived of their homes and property. No proper compensation of any of the property lost there or in any other state the Saints were driven out of has ever occurred. None of their attackers are ever found guilty of anything.

9.) Again we see that the Laws of the United States are good enough to punish "the Mormons" but they're not good enough to protect them.

10.) Apparently, one printing press is worth an entire city and the lives and property of it's people. Destroying one is punishable by death. Can anyone think of any case in US History where the government overreacted to such an extent? Such cases may exist, but I doubt anyone is trying to justify that sort of behavior.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Faded

[ErikJohnson]

Essentially, the hangup you keep coming back to: If the Protestant Reformation produced false doctrine, then calling it inspired is contradictory. Fair enough.

Is it just me, or are we getting better at our dialogue, Faded? Regardless, I thank you for that small concession. I’m pleased you were at least able to see my point. You got a lot further than anyone else ever did in Priesthood/Gospel Doctrine, back in the day.

;0)

And that’s what I like about these message boards. We can take as much time as we need and go as deep as necessary until we at least have understanding, if not agreement.

Erik, can you answer my question then? Why do Protestant faiths stop short of completely denouncing the Catholic Church? Doing anything less than that is fence-sitting. Essentially, they are willing to accept the Catholic Church as the true "Body of Christ" passed down from the Apostles, yet they reject the Catholic Church and separate themselves from it. So is the Catholic Church right or is the Catholic Church wrong? Protestant denominations seem to like to have it both ways. How does that make any sense?

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re asking why Protestants rejected some aspects of Catholicism (e.g., authority via sacred tradition/apostolic succession, Purgatory, the canonical status of certain books labeled “Apocrypha”) but not all of them (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation/hypostatic union, ex nihilo creation, the canonical status of the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the 27 books of the New Testament).

The short answer, in my opinion, is that the things we share in common are the core elements of the Christian Faith. Not to say the things we dispute are inconsequential, but they’re not as essential as the doctrines on which we do agree. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book about the common elements of the Christian Faith—Mere Christianity, and I highly recommend it to LDS (especially the ones who routinely overlook the Christian forest and get hung-up on the imperfections and differences among the trees).

The number one point you have focussed on in virtually all posts, and you're primary reasoning for absolute rejection of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the Trinity.

Interesting observation, and though I did use that word a couple of times on this thread, I don’t think it’s accurate overall—unless you read Trinity every time I write Jesus. Not that that would be an unfair inference, as I am Trinitarian. But I actually try to steer around Trinity debates with LDS.

If I were to state my “primary” reason, it would be more elemental than the beliefs expressed in the ancient creeds and illustrated in the “Trinity Shield.” My primary reason for rejecting LDS doctrine is that I cannot accept that Jesus is, or ever was, anything less than God. Period. He is not a created being. He is not an “organized intelligence.” He is not your “spirit brother.” He is not “a God.” He is God. The only God. The eternal God. The man who took upon himself the sins of the world and died an excruciating and shameful death on a cross—was God. Christianity makes a staggering claim when you think about it—that God died. God died, in my place, for my sin. I find that amazing—and I find it compelling. And every alternative explanation of Jesus, from Mormon to Muslim, is interesting and worthy of debate and discussion, but utimately the alternatives ring hollow for me. It comes down to Jesus. And I think if you do the math, you’ll find Jesus is the most common theme across my posts. There's nothing that interests me more.

Regards,

--Erik

[Faded]

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re asking why Protestants rejected some aspects of Catholicism (e.g., authority via sacred tradition/apostolic succession, Purgatory, the canonical status of certain books labeled “Apocrypha”) but not all of them (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation/hypostatic union, ex nihilo creation, the canonical status of the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the 27 books of the New Testament).

Yes obviously that was my question. I don't know if you really answered it though. For instance, because celibacy is about as old as the Trinity (give or take a century), one might conclude that celibacy is a "core element of the Christian Faith" because it is very old. There is not sufficient evidence in the New Testament record to demonstrate that the Apostles taught the Trinity doctrine. The fact that they never explain it with anything like the Nicene verbiage ("One being, one essence, three persons, three aspects, etc) is very interesting. If that was the best way to describe the true nature of God, then it is interesting that they never say anything like it in the New Testament.

If we go by "Sola Scriptura" and use the Bible as our sole basis for establishing the core doctrines of Christianity, I can see this much being the foundation:

1.) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

2.) " 3 He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Like one from whom men hide their faces

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities

and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God,

smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed. "

3.) "[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

4.) Jesus of Nazareth came and ministered among the Jews. He was rejected and killed by them. Three days later he rose from the dead. The followers of Jesus passed along his teaching that this was the very purpose of his life. "To this end was I born."

5.) Forgiveness of our sins comes through Christ and Christ alone. Hope for Eternal Life and reward after this life comes about only through and because of Christ. Alone, we all come short of the Glory of God and are unworthy.

6.) Jesus Christ ascended into heaven and has all power, both in heaven and on earth. He is Omnipotent and Omniscient.

We could add to these as core elements of Christianity. But to call anything a "core element" of the Christian faith, you'd need to establish that it was taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The Trinity cannot be demonstrated as such. Thus, my point stands -- why accept a doctrine that was decided upon (literally voted on) over 200 years after all Apostles were dead as irrefutable? Constantine and the members of the Council of Nicaea are welcome to pronounce whatever they like, but their authority to do so is no clearer than those who promoted celibacy in the Priesthood within that same era. They made the broad sweeping pronouncement that anyone who does not accept the nature of God as described by the doctrine of the Trinity to be heretical and unChristian. I would contend that they had no right to make such decisions and pronouncements, and that one must validate their claims based on Biblical writings. If the Bible does not contain their teaching of the Trinity, fully, completely, entirely, and unquestionably, then they were overstepping their authority (if they truly had any).

The fact that the Council of Nicaea happened at all is evidence enough that the followers of Christ were not united behind the teaching of the Trinity at that time, so you must make a great leap of faith to past hurdles of murder, conspiracy, plots, assassinations, worldly politics, Greek philosophical influence and many other things. Once you make that leap of faith and dismiss all the things that should lead any reasonable person to question the proceedings and history of it, you can come to "the Trinity is the only correct way to describe God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost" because Emperor Constantine said so. Not because Christ said so. Not because any of the Apostles said so. No, it is because Emperor Constantine said so.

I suppose it comes down to this: Many things can be accurately demonstrated to be core doctrines of Christianity as taught by Jesus and the Apostles. The Trinity is not one of them.

And by the way, I do enjoy the writings of C.S. Lewis. He certainly had a powerful way of defending and upholding Christianity.

More later ...

[Faded]

Interesting observation, and though I did use that word a couple of times on this thread, I don’t think it’s accurate overall—unless you read Trinity every time I write Jesus. Not that that would be an unfair inference, as I am Trinitarian. But I actually try to steer around Trinity debates with LDS.

If I were to state my “primary” reason, it would be more elemental than the beliefs expressed in the ancient creeds and illustrated in the “Trinity Shield.” My primary reason for rejecting LDS doctrine is that I cannot accept that Jesus is, or ever was, anything less than God. Period. He is not a created being. He is not an “organized intelligence.” He is not your “spirit brother.” He is not “a God.” He is God. The only God. The eternal God. The man who took upon himself the sins of the world and died an excruciating and shameful death on a cross—was God. Christianity makes a staggering claim when you think about it—that God died. God died, in my place, for my sin. I find that amazing—and I find it compelling. And every alternative explanation of Jesus, from Mormon to Muslim, is interesting and worthy of debate and discussion, but utimately the alternatives ring hollow for me. It comes down to Jesus. And I think if you do the math, you’ll find Jesus is the most common theme across my posts. There's nothing that interests me more.

I don't know if you're fully appreciating the logical contradiction you just expressed here. Essentially, you are saying, "I not really disagreeing with you on the Trinity, just on how you define God and Jesus Christ." Erik, how do you personally define God and Christ? With the doctrine of the Trinity, that's how. You have raised the point, right along with many other Christians, that "Mormons do not believe in the true Jesus. They believe in a different Jesus." What is the basis for this statement? What is the underlying problem you have with our understand for Jesus Christ? The Trinity. It's all built into the Trinity.

Comparing our faith in Jesus Christ to that of Islam is preposterous and I do wish you would stop trying to make that point. It's insulting. Jesus Christ is God. He is my Lord and My God. He created everything and I believe he is the only way for me to find salvation from my sins. He is everything to me. Without him, life would be miserable and meaningless. No member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is going to say any less. Islam considers him to be nothing more than another prophet. So while I admire the faith of Muslims around the world, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that my understanding of Jesus Christ is anything similar to theirs. It isn't even close.

Both of us can agree on the statement, "Jesus Christ is God." We just mean different things by it. You're welcome to disagree with our viewpoint, but you have not done nearly enough to demonstrate that the quaint notion of "Sola Scriptura" is not being contradicted by an absolutist acceptance of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. In short, accept the Trinity and never, ever question it no matter what. If the Bible is the sole source to find and to measure all truth, then the Trinity could not possibly be an absolute.

You've made some very nice sounding statements about the unity Christianity and how they all live happily together with only slight differences of opinion. I think that is a very naive characterization of the Protestant Reformation. I would contend that the 30 Years War was the crowning event allowing for the permanent survival of the Protestants. Protestants and Catholics pummelled each other in this and many other cases, until they eventually made an uneasy truce. Why? Because the entire continent of Europe was completely exhausted and nobody was really winning. So much death and destruction with nothing much accomplished by it. Conflict and violence didn't ever completely end, but it has diminished slowly over the centuries. It has taken centuries for Catholicsm and Protestantism to place nice together. To characterize them as good buddies and long-time friends seems like a tremendous distortion of reality.

What I see in the Protestant Reformation in general: The Reformers stopped short of what they logically should have done -- denounce the Catholic Church. If they disagree with their Mother Church on a long list of things, then why sit on the fence? Because of what it would mean. The Catholic Church was the only Church for a long period of time. To call them wrong is to imply that they are not God's Church and Kingdom on Earth. If they are not God's Church and Kingdom on Earth then there must have been a falling away at some point in time. So to acknowledge the logical conclusion they had already begun -- that the Catholic Church is not God's True Church -- would be to admit that God's True Church and Kingdom was not to be found anywhere on Earth anymore. The implications of that were too much, so Protestantism stopped short of calling the Catholic Church false. They must have felt they had no choice. But there's the real dilemna. If the Catholic Church perpetuated a long list of false doctrines that were offensive to God as the Reformers claimed it did, how can it be God's True Church and Kingdom?

End result, the Protestant Reformation and the religions that sprang from it continue to sit on the fence. To them, the Catholic Church is not right and it's not wrong. It's both and neither.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Faded

[ErikJohnson]

Seriously, Faded—how do you expect me to respond and defend things I neither wrote nor implied? After making real progress—we’re right back at post #15.

I didn’t say, essentially or otherwise, "I'm not really disagreeing with you on the Trinity, just on how you define God and Jesus Christ." You and I obviously do disagree over the Trinity. I didn’t say the various denominations within the Christian Church—“all live happily together with only slight differences of opinion.” I don’t agree their differences are slight. And I didn’t characterize them as “good buddies and long-time friends.” I agree such a characterization would be a distortion.

Sometimes I get the impression you don’t really want to engage me, Faded. Instead, you’d prefer to engage a caricature of me that you’ve created in your head. And the funny thing is—I dislike the caricature at least as much as you. He makes spectacularly bad arguments and is evidently thick as a brick. The most we can say is he sometimes provides unintended comic relief. So perhaps you could just let him go for once and for all...

Lewis’s Mere Christianity would be a really, really good book for you to read and think about, Faded. It does a much better job of explaining the common elements and themes that unite the Christian Faith than I can possibly hope to accomplish here. The subject is tangential to the topic of this thread—although I can plainly see it’s a keenly interesting subject for you. So I’ll make you a deal. You read the book, and then we’ll open a dedicated thread to it and discuss it. Perhaps others would find it interesting as well and join in.

What do you say?

--Erik

[Faded]

Sometimes I get the impression you don’t really want to engage me, Faded. Instead, you’d prefer to engage a caricature of me that you’ve created in your head. And the funny thing is—I dislike the caricature at least as much as you. He makes spectacularly bad arguments and is evidently thick as a brick. The most we can say is he sometimes provides unintended comic relief. So perhaps you could just let him go for once and for all...

I will forego collecting all of the many instances where you have taken little stabs and thrown little insults based upon your opinion that we have an incorrect understanding of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. If you don't want it to be a focal point of discussions with you, you might want to stop taking little pot-shots at what you perceive as a false teaching by the LDS Church. Indeed, you do seem to take great delight in bringing up anything you believe is controversial in our history and in our beliefs. It doesn't lend itself to a civil and thoughtful discussion. So just stop doing it and we'll get along fine. If you have a question about something, bring it up without implied bias or distaste.

Lewis’s Mere Christianity would be a really, really good book for you to read and think about, Faded. It does a much better job of explaining the common elements and themes that unite the Christian Faith than I can possibly hope to accomplish here. The subject is tangential to the topic of this thread—although I can plainly see it’s a keenly interesting subject for you. So I’ll make you a deal. You read the book, and then we’ll open a dedicated thread to it and discuss it. Perhaps others would find it interesting as well and join in.

What do you say?

--Erik

I'm pretty sure I have a copy of it around here somewhere. If I can't dig that up, I'll certainly be happy to purchase a new one. Of course, nobody ever nominated C.S. Lewis as "the man with the last word on all matters of Christianity." But I would enjoy discussing his works.

As it relates to the Protestant Reformation, the simple explanation of the LDS point of view is this: The Reformation began the changes that make the Restoration possible and successful. They were right about many things and wrong about many things, but it was God's work to lead them to question things and to ensure their success. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints views the Protestant Reformation as the light before the dawn, and essential to where we are today.

We disagree with the Reformers on a number of points certainly, but the diversity of doctrines and teachings that sprang from the Reformation make it impossible to be otherwise.

The points that I have brought up that remains unanswered:

1.) The Protestant Reformation and the religions that arose from it denounce a long list of Catholic teachings, practices and doctrines because they are not explicitly Biblical -- often even understood as being directly contradictory to the Bible. Yet there are a number of teachings that the Protestant religions adopt without the slightest questioning, and defend "to the death" in theological dialogue. The Trinity is just one of them. I would like to know why they so passionately defend doctrines that do not meet their own requirement of being "By the Scriptures Alone." The Trinity is THE prime example that is the basis of tremendous criticism targeting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, so I think it's a pretty valid point in context of the thread. Can you validate their criticism on this and other doctrines?

2.) Additionally, the Protestant religions did not entirely denounce the Catholic Church as false or leading the people astray. By failing to do so, they are leaving the clear implication hanging there that they believe that the Catholic Church is -- or at least used to be -- led and guided by God and his True Church and Kingdom on Earth. If there was no Apostasy, then the Catholic Church remains as God's True Church, doesn't it? This is where I see fence-sitting. A willingness to call Catholicism partly wrong, but no willingness to take those accusations to their logical conclusions. I find the notion of the Protestant Reformation having any validity completely contradictory in their claim that there was never a Great Apostasy or anything like it.

Broad and general summary of my thoughts on the Protestant Reformation: Accomplished many good things, but did not go far enough.

[ErikJohnson]

Far be it from me to leave you with unanswered points, Faded. However far from my OP it takes us…

;0)

Regarding your first one, keep in mind Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest authority—but it does not mean the Bible is the sole authority (that would be Solo Scriptura). Big difference! Protestants do consider the creeds that establish the Trinity (e.g., the Nicene and Athanasian creeds) to be authoritative. Not on par with Scripture—but authoritative none-the-less.

If you find it troubling that Christians use non-Biblical language (e.g., Trinity) to summarize and defend Biblical truths, the following short article may give you some perspective—

Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Regarding your second point, you seem to have forgotten the intent of the Reformers was to reform the Catholic Church, not destroy it. They didn’t think all of its teachings and practices were wrong—just some of them. Your charge that Protestants are “fence-sitting” by failing to take an all-or-nothing view of Catholicism makes little sense in the context of reformation.

If I were to venture a guess—your premise here is the LDS notion that “God’s True Church” implies a specific religious organization. But this premise is flawed. I suggest you take a broader, Biblical view of the Church as being the Body of Christ. The “True Church” is really all who believe—regardless of their Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox affiliation. Christians are the Church. Christians are the Body of Christ. I think this understanding will serve you much better than imagining there must be one true church organization, and the rest are false to varying degrees.

Regarding your interest in reading and discussing Mere Christianity—I’m pleased to hear it and definitely think it will be helpful for you (and useful for me to re-read as well). When you get your hands on a copy and make it through the intro, launch a thread and share your thoughts. I’ll keep up and add my own, and perhaps others will join in.

--Erik

[Faded]

To be completely honest, those two points have been puzzling me about the Protestant Reformation since I was a young boy.

1.) Why pick and choose which non-Biblical doctrines and practices are acceptable and on what basis?

2.) Why call the Catholic Church on the carpet for being wrong, but never carry that thought to it's logical conclusion when Catholicism rejected those claims?

Frankly, those two items have always given me pause with regard to the Reformation and Protestantism in general since I was old enough to understand the history of it. Yes Martin Luther started out trying to fix the Mother Church. After it almost cost him his life, he opted for creating his own religion. He gave up trying to fix the Catholic Church and made his own religion. And to this day, all of Protestantism is not in the business of trying to fix the Catholic Church. They have separated themselves from it, denounced it as false by degrees, and gone on their merry way. There is no intent to put the pieces back together again. The Roman Catholic Church could change everything the reformers said they should. They could make concessions. They could do anything you please. Protestant religions are not coming back into the fold. That is the reality.

The contrived philosophy of "the Body of Christ" containing all religions that teach Christ believe in Him is a quaint notion. It does not describe the way God operates though. It implies that everybody is right at the same time as long as they think they are right. It puts forward the theory that the Church and Kingdom of God on Earth is a kingdom of complete chaos, disunity and disarray. I don't recall God ever operating that way before. His house has always been a house of order. This theory contradicts that concept of order and unity. Describing the Kingdom of God on Earth as a body of people with unified doctrine, unified organization and unified purpose is not some made up notion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is exactly how the Bible teaches it.

As for the Trinity, it's just the best example of a doctrine that Protestantism accepted without bothering to question it's validity. I've not heard anyone ever offer a good explanation as to why the Trinity (and other doctrines) are given special status by all Protestant religions. This and other doctrines can never be questioned no matter what, yet nobody has ever been able to offer an explanation why they cannot be questioned.

Call me crazy, but here's what I'm seeing. Protestants rejected a long list of "core truth" doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. As a result, the Catholic Church denounced and rejected them as heretics and spent the next few centuries trying to eradicate them in various ways. Protestantism refuted the notion that they were heretical, claiming that they had it right and that Catholicism was clinging to falsehoods. A few centuries later, in the 1800's, the Protestants encounter "the Mormons" and treat them with the same vehemence, arrogance and spite that they had received at the hands of the Catholics. The underlying excuse? Because the Mormons were heretical and contradicting long established "core truths" of Christianity, claiming that Christianity was clinging to falsehoods. Sounds like absolute hypocrisy to me.

[Faded]

Always get interrupted mid-thought. Already posted the two items that always have and probably always will puzzle me about the Protestant religions in the world.

Far be it from me to leave you with unanswered points, Faded. However far from my OP it takes us…

;0)

Regarding your first one, keep in mind Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest authority—but it does not mean the Bible is the sole authority (that would be Solo Scriptura). Big difference! Protestants do consider the creeds that establish the Trinity (e.g., the Nicene and Athanasian creeds) to be authoritative. Not on par with Scripture—but authoritative none-the-less.

I know that Protestantism generally accepts the Nicene Creed and the Council of Nicaea as authoritative. That is where I think it gets messy. If you accept one Ecumenical Council of as authoritative, then does that mean you accept them all?

If not, then several things must be explained.

1.) What is the basis for acceptance of decisions made by any of the Ecumenical Councils?

2.) At what point do you Ecumenical Councils cease to be valid?

3.) If at any point, the authority upon which Ecumenical Councils is founded ceases, then exactly what happened to that authority? What are the repercussions of this cessation of authority?

4.) What is the proper dividing line between valid Ecumenical Councils and invalid ones?

If you accept all Ecumenical Councils and the authority upon which they are based, then there is only one question to be answered: Why aren’t Protestants scrambling to beg forgiveness of the Holy Catholic Church and reconciling themselves to its undeniable authority? Why aren’t they rejoining the Catholic Church?

It is fine and well to claim that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are “authoritative, but less than Scripture.” I would have to say they are being taken as “higher than Scripture” because they define how you are to read and interpret the Bible.

Your charge that Protestants are “fence-sitting” by failing to take an all-or-nothing view of Catholicism makes little sense in the context of reformation.

When the Reformers started out, then the accusation of fence-sitting would be unfounded because they were trying to fix the Catholic Church. At some point, each of them gave up and founded their own religions. It is at that point where it becomes a valid point. If you’re leaving the Catholic Church but there is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church and you accept that they are the authorized “Body of Christ” then why leave?

If I were to venture a guess—your premise here is the LDS notion that “God’s True Church” implies a specific religious organization. But this premise is flawed. I suggest you take a broader, Biblical view of the Church as being the Body of Christ. The “True Church” is really all who believe—regardless of their Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox affiliation. Christians are the Church. Christians are the Body of Christ. I think this understanding will serve you much better than imagining there must be one true church organization, and the rest are false to varying degrees.

Contained within this hypothetical fraternity of “the Body of Christ” composed of all Christians, there is a problem. The Catholic Church does not accept the authority nor the right for the Protestant faiths to have separated themselves from their Mother Church. As of Vatican II, they softened their stance from, “they will all burn in Hell for eternity for their rejection of the Holy Catholic Church” to a more inclusive view: “They will suffer in Purgatory for their rejection of the Holy Catholic Faith, but the true believers from among Protestantism will be able enter Heaven and receive God’s Eternal reward thereafter.” The Roman Catholic Church still stakes it’s claim to being “the one true faith” and that the “God’s True Church” does indeed imply a specific religious organization. In their view, God’s True Church = The Holy Roman Catholic Church. So the concept is certainly not unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

If you hold Nicea creed to be authorative, then what do you make of the line in it....

"We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."

[Faded]

Regarding your first one, keep in mind Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest authority—but it does not mean the Bible is the sole authority (that would be Solo Scriptura). Big difference!

I did miss one thing there that needs clarification: Dictionary.com (sola) Sola: (Latin) alone; by oneself (I'll assume we're not going to bother worrying about the "female" and "stage directions" part of it.) Sola does not appear to mean "highest" or "first" or "having preference to." It means "alone."

Granted, this is not how Protestantism is and it is not how they have ever been. But since you brought up that bit of word play, I thought I'd point out that it doesn't appear to mean what you're saying it means. "Sola Scripture" = By the Bible/Scriptures Alone. The general idea with the word "Sola" is that it is not mixed with other company. Rather it is alone. Thought it was at least worth mentioning.

[jblake]

1.) Why pick and choose which non-Biblical doctrines and practices are acceptable and on what basis?

Denominations' date=' and even non-denominations, such as the church of Christ, have a set of principles which they apply to biblical exegesis. As a general rule of thumb, the resulting doctrines are both mutually congruent, and have scriptural support for them. (This is equally true for seeker friendly mega-churches, as it is for rural snake handling Primitive Baptists. The difference is that the latter are far more vocal, and attempt to correct what they considered to be a sin, than the former.)

Individuals, OTOH, tend to partake of "cafeteria Christianity", picking only what sounds good to them, without investigating the scriptural basis of the doctrine. Things aren't helped when people don't bother to read the Bible for themselves, relying only on whatever the preacher says in the sermon, or what they pick up on the radio, or TV. Even worse are those that explicitly reject what is in the Bible, for the simple reason that it disagrees with Post-Modern Thought. Adding and abetting that "cafeteria Christianity" culture is fifteen odd centuries of Catholic Christianity adopting, and incorporating Pagan theology, rituals, and practices, into its theology, dogma, rites, and practices. (As one example, Rogation Sunday, and its kith and kin started out as Pagan days of rest from uninhibited frolicking.)

2.) Why call the Catholic Church on the carpet for being wrong, but never carry that thought to it's logical conclusion when Catholicism rejected those claims?

I don't think anybody can claim that the Waldensians did not carry out their rejection of Catholic theology to its logical conclusion. Likewise the Anabaptists carried out their rejection of Catholic theology, to the logical conclusion of their belief system.

John Hus rejected Tradition, unless it was derived from Scripture. He didn't live to see the Catholic Church admit that it was practicing that which was heretical according to Catholic Dogma.

What people forget is that Luther accepted both Scripture, and Tradition, provided the latter was in conformance to the former. Over time, Luther dug deeper into Catholic doctrine and practices, and found more and more of them lacking any basis in Scripture. Had the Pope addressed the specific issues of the 95 Theses, when it was nailed to the door, the odds are against the creation of Lutheran Christianity. (Probably the key difference between contemporary Lutherans, and contemporary Catholics is the acceptance/rejection of Vatican II and Vatican I.)

Reformed Christianity is based on TULIP. To the extent that Catholic Christianity rejects TULIP, Reformed Christianity rejects Catholic Christianity.

The Anglican Communion was as much a statement of political autonomy, as it was a throw back to Celtic Christianity. Theologically, it steers a course between that of Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, and Reformed Christianity.

By the time The Restoration Movement rolled around, things had quietened down enough to examine all aspects of Christian doctrine and practice. One consequence was throwing out everything since John wrote the Apocalypse. One ironical consequence is that once one throws out the teachings inflicted upon Catholic Theology by the Magisterium, there are virtually no theological differences between the two.

The Roman Catholic Church could change everything the reformers said they should. They could make concessions. They could do anything you please. Protestant religions are not coming back into the fold. That is the reality.

For the Roman Catholic Church to change everything that the reformers requested, would require two major shifts in theology. a)The rejection _in tota_ of Vatican II and Vatican I. Most of the Fifth Lateran Council, and Council of Trent would also have to be rejected; b) The rejection of the authority of the Magisterium, and the nullification of _all_ doctrine imposed by that body upon Catholic Christianity.

The contrived philosophy of "the Body of Christ" containing all religions that teach Christ believe in Him is a quaint notion. It does not describe the way God operates though.

Those that use the term "the Body of Christ" have a pretty specific definition of what it means. Whilst the various definitions are not one hundred percent compatible, there are areas of congruence.

As for the Trinity, it's just the best example of a doctrine that Protestantism accepted without bothering to question it's validity.

Whilst Luther didn't analyze it as deeply as he analyzed simony, he did conclude that it was valid Doctrine. Calvin likewise concluded that the Trinity was sound Biblical doctrine. You have to either go back the Council of Chalcedon (451), or fast forward to the mid-eighteenth century to find a branch of Christianity that did not support Trinitarianism.

This and other doctrines can never be questioned no matter what, yet nobody has ever been able to offer an explanation why they cannot be questioned.

I'm not sure what other doctrines you are referring to, but the validity of Trinitarianism has been repeatedly questioned. It might surprise you, but Pentacostal Christianity is split along the issue of Trinitarianism. Most of what falls under the umbrella of Protestant Christianity has found the Scriptural evidence in support of Trinitarianism conclusive, and the alternate theories lacking both substance, and foundation.

contradicting long established "core truths" of Christianity, claiming that Christianity was clinging to falsehoods. Sounds like absolute hypocrisy to me.

One critical difference: The majority of the leaders of both the Reformation, and Restoration Movement were willing to accept that what they taught was false, if one could demonstrate that it was false using either the sixty-six book, seventy three book, or seventy-six book Canon. Those same leaders, applying the same criteria to the Book of Mormon, a they applied to which ever Canon they utilize, find that it (Book of Mormon) fails on a number of critical (to them) points, and as such lacks divine inspiration.

I know that Protestantism generally accepts the Nicene Creed and the Council of Nicaea as authoritative.

"Protestant" is an all embracing term, that describes a number of different groups with incongruent theologies.

* Lutheran: Medieval Catholic Doctrine and Dogma stripped of heretical teachings by the Magisterium. ("Heretical" as defined by Catholic Ecclesiastical Law --- something which the Roman Catholic Church has more or less admitted to, for most of Luther's points.)

* Reformed Christianity/Calvinism, which advocates TULIP, or variants thereof;

* Reformed Christianity/Arminianism, which advocates Remonstrance, or variants thereof;

* The Anglican Communion: Medieval Catholic Doctrine and Dogma overlaid by both Celtic Christianity and Reformed Christianity;

The above groups tend to accept the first Seven Ecumenical Councils.

* Anabaptists, Waldenese, and related groups;

* Baptist Theology;

* The Restoration Movement;

* Pentacostal Christianity;

Those four groups tend to reject all Ecumenical Councils.

There are exceptions in both lists. For example, _Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ)_ is an example of a Restoration Movement Church that accepts the first Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Numerically, the first group might be larger. However, the second group is gaining members, whilst the first group is losing members. (Most individual church growth in the United States is the result of "church shopping". )

If you accept one Ecumenical Council of as authoritative, then does that mean you accept them all?

The Council of Rome (Circa 145) called by Marcion isn't recognized by any current branches of Christianity. (The only branch that accepted it, was Gnostic Christianity, and one can logically argue that they didn't accept it.)

The next three church councils [ First Council of Nicaea (325), First Council of Constantinople (381), Council of Ephesus (431)] were accepted by Orthodox, Oriental, and Catholic Christianity.

The next church council [second Council of Ephesus (449)] has since been rejected by Orthodox, Catholic, and some branches of Oriental Christianity. I guess I should also specify that all parts of Protestant Christianity reject this one.

The fourth church Council [Council of Chalcedon (451) ] are accepted by Orthodox, Catholic, and some branches of Oriental Christianity.

The next two church councils [second Council of Constantinople (553), Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) ] are accepted by Orthodox and Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Quinisext Council (692) ] is only accepted by Orthodox Christianity.

The next council [Council of Hieria (754)] is ignored by everybody.

The next council [second Council of Nicaea (787)] is accepted by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) ] is accepted by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Fourth Council of Constantinople (879-880)] is accepted by Orthodox Christianity.

The next six councils [First Council of the Lateran (1123), Second Council of the Lateran (1139), Third Council of the Lateran (1179), Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), First Council of Lyon (1245), Second Council of Lyon (1274), Council of Vienne (1311-1312) ] are recognized only by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341-1351)] is granted some status in Orthodox Christianity, but is not universally recognized as Ecumenical council.

The next council [Council of Pisa (1409)is not accepted by anybody. (Talks broke down.)

The next council [Council of Constance (1414-1418)] is ostensibly accepted by both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. However, neither group implemented its resolutions.

The next council [ Council of Siena (1423-1424) ] is not accepted by anybody.

The next council [Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence (1431-1445)] is "sort of recognized" by both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. Again, we have a failure to implement the resolutions it passed.

The next two councils [Fifth Council of the Lateran (1512-1514), Council of Trent (1545-1563)] are recognized only by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [synod of Jerusalem (1672)] is granted some status in Orthodox Christianity, but is not universally recognized as an Ecumenical council.

The next council [ First Vatican Council (1870)] is accepted by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [second Vatican Council (1962-1965)] is accepted by most, but not all of Catholic Christianity.

I think I'm missing at least one Western Church Council. I'm missing all of the Asian Church Councils.

As you can see, no branch of Christianity accepts all of the Western Ecumenical Church Councils. Reasons for accepting/rejecting a specific council tend to be theologically dependent. For example, Gnostic Christianity didn't abide by the decision of the Council of Rome called by Marcion, and as such, can arguebly be said to have rejected that council, even though it was called by one of their own.

If not, then several things must be explained.

1.) What is the basis for acceptance of decisions made by any of the Ecumenical Councils?

If the council considers the reasoned, scripturally based doctrine to be heretical, the adherents of that doctrine tend to reject that council --- even if fifteen plus centuries later the descendants of the other participants of that council say "oops, we misunderstood your theology. You aren't a heretic."

2.) At what point do you Ecumenical Councils cease to be valid?

This depends upon the specific Christian theology that the individual/organization has.

3.) If at any point, the authority upon which Ecumenical Councils is founded ceases, then exactly what happened to that authority? What are the repercussions of this cessation of authority?

Historically, the Church Councils accepted by Orthodox Christianity have been called by the _secular_ political leader of the region in which the council is held. Arguebly, this also applies to those accepted by Catholic Christianity, on the basis that the Pope is a secular political leader. (Orthodox Christianity considers that to be an abuse of papal power, and as such, an unacceptable grasping of illegitimate power and authority.)

The only example of a Church Council in the Bible, shows that it was called by those parties who disagreed with a specific aspect of theology. It has been argued that it is a bad example, because it did not produce any binding resolutions. Furthermore, any resolutions it did pass, were honoured in the breach thereof, by Paul.

4.) What is the proper dividing line between valid Ecumenical Councils and invalid ones?

This also depends upon the specific theology of the specific organization/person.

If you accept all Ecumenical Councils and the authority upon which they are based,

In as much as no branch of Christianity accepts all of the Ecumenical Councils, this, and the rest of your questions are theologically meaningless.

Why aren’t Protestants scrambling to beg forgiveness of the Holy Catholic Church and reconciling themselves to its undeniable authority? Why aren’t they rejoining the Catholic Church?

Consider that the Catholic Church abrogated to itself that which it had neither the authority, nor the right to claim unto itself. Furthermore, consider that it deliberately adopted a heretical position, and failed to request repentance for the heresies that it advocated, even when presented with evidence of those heresies.

jonathon

[Faded]

Long post there jblake. Many good points and I’m going to have to summarize to respond properly.

1.) Personal Study: There are not enough people who deign to call themselves Christians who never bother to study for themselves, know God for themselves and understand the teachings of Christ for themselves. If they have a religious question, they’ll go ask their minister about it. This is most unfortunate. I don’t know what the cure is for most of Christianity. They are quite set in their ways, and it doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon. Our religion has a solution that works fairly well: No paid clergy in any congregation. Everyone is expected to participate equally. Everyone might have to give a lesson or sermon on any given Sunday. Not sure if that change would go over so well in Mainstream Christianity, but I think it works for us. Far too many religious conversations I’ve had with non-Mormon Christians end in, “I’ll have to ask my pastor about that.”

2.) Pre-Reformation: My point about taking the rejection of Catholicism to its logical conclusion doesn’t necessarily find it’s fulfillment in Waldensians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Anabaptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Jan Hus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or even John Wycliffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for that matter. Everyone seemed quite keen on repairing the Catholic Church. When fixing the Catholic Church became impossible, they spent most of the rest of their existences as movements trying to survive the wrath of Rome. How seriously did any Pre-Reformation, Reformation or Post-Reformation movement ever consider the question: “Okay, so the Catholic Church is false. Now what? ” The effort was undertaken by all Protestant groups to separate fact from fiction through study of the Bible. I would say most of the foundational Reformers made fine progress, and I think each must have known their work was incomplete by the time they died. It is their successors who stand guilty of not going much further with things and not bothering to question things further. See item number 1. Ultimately, mainstream Protestantism denies the notion that there ever was a Total Apostasy, but to make that claim, they have to stay in bed with the notion that the Catholic Church from 0 AD – about 1400 AD was truly God’s all along. To hold that conclusion, you’d have to conclude that God will let a whole lot of corruption and nonsensical practices exist without bothering to correct them.

3.) The Council of Nicaea: The biggest trouble with Protestantism that frankly confuses the hell out of me, is the notion that some Ecumenical councils are authoritative and some are not. It even goes farther. Some pieces of some Ecumenical Councils are counted as authoritative, while some are not. The Council of Nicaea sees the majority of this. The question that nobody is bothering to answer: Why is the Council of Nicaea almost universally accepted as authoritative and correct when there are so many other councils that Protestants and even Eastern Orthodox and Catholics utterly reject? What makes Nicaea so special? The underlying basis for the validity of ANY Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is the notion that the Catholic Bishops (and by inference, the Catholic leadership) had the right from God to make doctrinal decisions. By the way, Mainstream Protestantism: accept Councils 1-7 with reservations (counting Nicaea I as the first council of course.)

4.) The Trinity: Where this leads is the Trinity, more than anything else. Yes you are right, there were movements who rejected the validity of the doctrine of the Triune God. Mainstream Christianity today still considers all such groups to be so heretical that they defy their right to call themselves “Christian.” On what basis? Based on the supposed infallibility of the Council of Nicaea. And you don’t even have to accept all of Nicaea. Just the Trinity. What is the basis used for such a nonsensical conclusion? If you can assert that Nicaea had the right to set doctrine into stone, then what’s the deal with all other Ecumenical Councils? More to the point, if the governing body at Nicaea was valid, then would that not establish the authority of the entirety of them all? In general, the vast majority of Protestant denominations wholeheartedly accept the Trinity. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation saying why.

5.) The Body of Christ: Those that use the terminology “Body of Christ” are asserting an entirely un-Biblical claim that “All Church’s are true as long as they fulfill X, Y, Z. Vast differences in doctrine are not important.” Where can we find this specifically taught in the Bible? Well, it’s simply not in there. It’s a Post-Reformation attempt to ask the whole of Christianity, “Why can’t we all just get along?” That’s very nice and all, but at no point does God nor Christ teach the notion of their Kingdom on Earth being a house of complete disarray and disorder. God never taught that “everything is true as long as some group thinks it is true.”

6.) Authority Comes From the Bible: This starts out well, but develops into something unfortunate. Based on using the Bible as a litmus test to determine what teachings of the Church were true and which were false, many errors in teaching and practice are rightly pointed out. So with that, the Reformers began the claim that was carried forward into succeeding generations: The Bible is the receptacle of all truth and that through prayer and reading the Bible, every question can be answered. If the Bible alone was sufficient to establish all truth, then there would only be one Protestant religion in the world. Not thousands, each claiming they have “a better understanding of the teachings of the Bible.” Since the word “Bible” never appears in any of the text of the Bible, it would be extremely difficult to substantiate that the Bible itself ever teaching any such thing. Then there is the notion of Priesthood Authority coming from the Bible. Again, the Bible never teaches any such thing. I’m not entirely sure where that concept originates. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints takes a different approach: At the point when the Protestant Reformation occurred, the Bible represented the most recent writings of authorized men of God. That makes it incredibly valuable. But I would challenge anyone in all Christendom to demonstrate that the Bible teaches that the Bible is all the written truth God will ever provide His children – and any cited passage would probably have to be THAT SPECIFIC if it’s communicating something THAT GAME-CHANGING. In my opinion, this is the unfortunate false myth generated by the Protestant Reformation, and probably never intended by the most of the original Reformers.

It’s an interesting change of gears from the 5 Solas to TULIP to describe the overall Protestant Reformation. It may do a better job of describing the Reformation, but there are exceptions to TULIP as well:

Total depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace

Perseverance of the saints

Let me know if I have that right. That might be more of a Calvinist flavor of it.

I'll try to hit the rest of your points later.

[ErikJohnson]

Erik,

If you hold Nicea creed to be authorative, then what do you make of the line in it....

"We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."

Ephesians 4:5 comes to mind—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” As does Acts 2:38—“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Though I’m no expert, I think the subject matter expertise of the church fathers who wrote the Nicene Creed is evident. It’s certainly authoritative—although that doesn't mean it's infallible.

What do you make of it, AnthonyB? I’m guessing you might argue Baptists who do not recognize infant baptism are in violation of the Creed (and Ephesians 4:5 for that matter). Is that where this is headed?

;0)

--Erik

[AnthonyB]

Eric,

To be truthful, it is a doctrinal issue I’m still working through, I grew up being taught that "baptism was for remission of sins" but in a normative not exclusive sense. That is that it is the biblical pattern that there was "one baptism" that has two aspects: inner and outer baptism. The inner being the spiritual regeneration by the blood of Christ through the Holy Spirit and the outer being the actual immersing in water. Although the two should normally, in properly responding to the gospel, be linked however it was possible through the grace of our Lord for the inner baptism to occur where the outer had not. I’d actually agree with the Bapo’s that faith, confession and repentance should precede baptism and therefore infant christening (no matter how meaningful to the parents) is not and could never be Christian baptism. I could write several pages on the bits I’ve put to together on this but truthfully I’m still working thoroughly through the Scriptures on it. Basically for me, there is one baptism for believers, which is designed to be when all of both inner and outer aspects that the NT ascribes to baptism occur. However in reality not much of the church agrees with my view and there I believe in the mercy of God to his children.

However from my understanding the only two Protestant (or rather non-Catholic/Orthodox traditional Christians) groups that actually hold to "one baptism for the remission of sins" and are therefore would be able fully affirm that line in Nicea are Lutheran’s and restoration movement churches. I’m happy to be corrected but Reformed churches largely follow Zwingle and I had read that they would have issues with that line in the creed. I have read a number of "reformed" fourms where they spoke dissaprovally of that line in the creed. (Humorously even for Baptist’s, baptism actually has to remit at least one sin, the sin of not having obeyed our Lord’s command to be baptised!)

So oddly enough although having never heard of the creeds nor being taught them as a young Christian I find myself able to fully agree with Nicea , despite holding the creed to be neither authoritative nor infallible.

Your idea of an authoritative but not infallible, runs counter to the whole original purpose of a creed, reducing it to something more akin to a "faith statement". A sensible approach IMHO to the creeds is to affirm them where they agree with the bible and follow the bible where they differ from it. But then I struggle to see how they are then authoritative, rather a statement of how one part of the church saw things at one time. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by authoritative but not infallible, could I chose to decide that the section that teaches the nature of the trinity is non-infallible (who gets to chose what is or is it infallible in a creed)?

[ErikJohnson]

Eric,

To be truthful, it is a doctrinal issue I’m still working through, I grew up being taught that "baptism was for remission of sins" but in a normative not exclusive sense. That is that it is the biblical pattern that there was "one baptism" that has two aspects: inner and outer baptism. The inner being the spiritual regeneration by the blood of Christ through the Holy Spirit and the outer being the actual immersing in water. Although the two should normally, in properly responding to the gospel, be linked however it was possible through the grace of our Lord for the inner baptism to occur where the outer had not. I’d actually agree with the Bapo’s that faith, confession and repentance should precede baptism and therefore infant christening (no matter how meaningful to the parents) is not and could never be Christian baptism. I could write several pages on the bits I’ve put to together on this but truthfully I’m still working thoroughly through the Scriptures on it. Basically for me, there is one baptism for believers, which is designed to be when all of both inner and outer aspects that the NT ascribes to baptism occur. However in reality not much of the church agrees with my view and there I believe in the mercy of God to his children.

However from my understanding the only two Protestant (or rather non-Catholic/Orthodox traditional Christians) groups that actually hold to "one baptism for the remission of sins" and are therefore would be able fully affirm that line in Nicea are Lutheran’s and restoration movement churches. I’m happy to be corrected but Reformed churches largely follow Zwingle and I had read that they would have issues with that line in the creed. I have read a number of "reformed" fourms where they spoke dissaprovally of that line in the creed. (Humorously even for Baptist’s, baptism actually has to remit at least one sin, the sin of not having obeyed our Lord’s command to be baptised!)

So oddly enough although having never heard of the creeds nor being taught them as a young Christian I find myself able to fully agree with Nicea , despite holding the creed to be neither authoritative nor infallible.

Your idea of an authoritative but not infallible, runs counter to the whole original purpose of a creed, reducing it to something more akin to a "faith statement". A sensible approach IMHO to the creeds is to affirm them where they agree with the bible and follow the bible where they differ from it. But then I struggle to see how they are then authoritative, rather a statement of how one part of the church saw things at one time. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by authoritative but not infallible, could I chose to decide that the section that teaches the nature of the trinity is non-infallible (who gets to chose what is or is it infallible in a creed)?

I think I see your point, AnthonyB. It’s the “for” in “one baptism for the remission of sins” that you’re suggesting would be problematic—because it could be understood to imply an independent efficacy to the physical washing itself. Is that the gist of it? If so, then fair enough.

If the authors of the Nicene Creed meant to establish a doctrine of baptismal regeneration—then I wouldn’t hesitate to say they were wrong. But I’m far from being persuaded that this was the case.

Regarding the authority of creeds, I’ll cite John H. Leith’s Creeds of the Churches (sorry, it’s a book and I have no link)—

It remains to be noticed again that creeds do not receive their authority merely through the fiat of ecclesiastical authority. H. E. W. Turner has pointed out the importance of the common-sense wisdom of the Christian community, which in the long run is sounder than the action of church councils or the judgment of scholars. Creeds become authoritative when they become the common-sense wisdom, the consensus of the Christian community.

My original point was to clarify for Faded that Sola Scriptura never meant the Bible was the sole authority for Protestants. The Bible is the highest authority and the only infallible authority--but there are certainly other authorities informing and governing Christian life. Does that make sense?

Regards,

--Erik

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

The only (major) church that believes in baptismal regeneration is I believe the Roman Catholics, that is the baptism in and of itself remits sins. Although the Christian movement that I align with has been accused of teaching baptismal regeneration, I believe that is a false charge. I affirm that it is faith from first to last that obtains for us justification through the blood of Christ. Baptism without faith is just taking a bath. One of my faith movements’ wording has been "justification through faith at baptism". The NT links baptism to "remission of sins" because baptism is an integral part of a truly faithful response to the gospel. The NT doesn’t encourage people who believe in Christ to come to the front, raise a hand, make a private prayer or write in a response book. Although all of things can be valid first steps on the path of faith, the NT places baptism as the initiation ceremony of Christian faith.

Take the time to read Acts and list what people do in and around their Christian conversion. Jesus words in the Great Commission, Peter at Pentecost, Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, Saul/Paul (Or the already baptised disciples of John, who were rebaptised). In the NT, Baptism is part of faiths response to the gospel. The answer to what must I do to be saved, isn’t "repent, confess, believe and when you get around to it be baptised". It also isn’t "repent, confess, believe and once you’re a Christian then you should think about being baptised to obey Christ". Baptism is either among the things people are commanded to do upon receiving the gospel or where it isn’t explicitly commanded it is actually what they almost always immediately do when receiving the gospel.

However I see God as having given the church baptism as a gift not a burden. It was designed to give us a physical, public and symbol drenched (if you pardon the pun) act to root our response to the gospel, not as a "shibboleth" to judge and condemn others who disagree with what I think the NT says about baptism.

OK back to the creeds….

If your saying the creeds are an authority that can assist us in understanding from what viewpoint the Church universally looked at Scripture but your willing to walk away from the creed when it does not follow Scripture then that to me is reasonable. However please keep in mind that wasn’t what the creeds were created for or how they were used for most of their history. They were historically "rods of iron" used by states and state churches for beating people who couldn’t affirm every last words in them and used to divide and judge fellow Christians often on issues where the bible simply isn’t as clear as the creeds make it out to be. Sorry I’ll try to respect the creeds as important historical documents but the blood of so many innocent people that is directly the result of how the creeds were put to use inflames my response. I am acutely aware that for much of history and in much of Christendom, beliefs I hold dearly would have led to my persecution and the objects that would have been used against me are those very creeds and councils.

Edited May 25, 2009 by AnthonyB

[ErikJohnson]

Hey AnthonyB—

We’re on the same page here: “I affirm that it is faith from first to last that obtains for us justification through the blood of Christ.” Have to admit I thought it was curious we were discussing baptismal regeneration on an LDS message board. In my experience, it’s not something LDS commonly consider or discuss (although it did produce several search results on lds.org).

But then I looked it up on Wikipedia, and it said the doctrine’s adherents include Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic factions of the Anglican Church, and—“Mormons.”

The nuances of Lutheranism and other denominations were briefly discussed as was the doctrine’s repudiation by the Reformed Churches. It’s not Wikipedia’s best effort—but I’m just happy our little rabbit trail has come full circle and is now back to my opening post. Because here again we seem to have an LDS doctrine that, generally speaking, aligns better with Catholicism than with the alternatives stemming from the “inspired” (as LDS claim) Protestant Reformation. The irony of that claim (vis-a-vis LDS doctrines) continues...

Regarding the historical meaning/implication of creeds—I’m sure you’re right that they were considered infallible by many. If memory serves, Luther took some serious heat for arguing Councils could err. But abuse in the past, disturbing and distressing as it is, doesn’t mean creeds and confessions aren’t useful and necessary to summarize and defend the Bible. Even the simplest confession, “Jesus is God” constitutes such a summation of Scripture (the sentence itself is found nowhere in the Bible) and a defense against those who would tell us Jesus was a created being or an organized intelligence or a spirit brother, or a—well, you get the picture.

Regards,

--Erik

[Faded]

Hey AnthonyB—

We’re on the same page here: “I affirm that it is faith from first to last that obtains for us justification through the blood of Christ.” Have to admit I thought it was curious we were discussing baptismal regeneration on an LDS message board. In my experience, it’s not something LDS commonly consider or discuss (although it did produce several search results on lds.org).

But then I looked it up on Wikipedia, and it said the doctrine’s adherents include Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic factions of the Anglican Church, and—“Mormons.”

Baptismal regeneration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Baptismal Regeneration" is not the terminology that we use of course, but I don't think you should be too surprised to learn that we have quite a few beliefs in common with the rest of Christianity.

Baptismal Regeneration: "salvation is dependent upon, or more precisely, mediated through, the act of baptism; in other words, baptismal regenerationists believe that it is ordinarily necessary for one to be baptized in order to be saved."

Yeah, I'd say that much is 100% in line with LDS doctrine. The article is lousy at it's citations and does a terrible job of explaining exactly what Baptismal Regeneration is, and how the LDS Church teachings about baptism equate to Baptismal Regeneration. We certainly diverge greatly from the other Churches this article claims are proponents Baptismal Regeneration by taking a completely opposite stance from all of them on Infant baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and we most certainly do not hold the notion that an unbaptized baby or young child is damned to hell for not being baptized. Beyond the rather short and nonspecific statement of "baptism is essential" part, all the possible nuances of "Baptismal Regeneration" are left entirely unexplained. Obviously, a better definition of the belief needs to be provided.

The nuances of Lutheranism and other denominations were briefly discussed as was the doctrine’s repudiation by the Reformed Churches. It’s not Wikipedia’s best effort—but I’m just happy our little rabbit trail has come full circle and is now back to my opening post. Because here again we seem to have an LDS doctrine that, generally speaking, aligns better with Catholicism than with the alternatives stemming from the “inspired” (as LDS claim) Protestant Reformation. The irony of that claim (vis-a-vis LDS doctrines) continues...

Regarding the historical meaning/implication of creeds—I’m sure you’re right that they were considered infallible by many. If memory serves, Luther took some serious heat for arguing Councils could err. But abuse in the past, disturbing and distressing as it is, doesn’t mean creeds and confessions aren’t useful and necessary to summarize and defend the Bible. Even the simplest confession, “Jesus is God” constitutes such a summation of Scripture (the sentence itself is found nowhere in the Bible) and a defense against those who would tell us Jesus was a created being or an organized intelligence or a spirit brother, or a—well, you get the picture.

Regards,

--Erik

We come back to that point again. "When comparing Protestant vs Catholic, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints agrees with the Catholic Church more often than not." It's an interesting notion, but I don't think you've done a very good job of establishing your point. Anyone can say, "Drinking of alcohol is forbidden by God according to both Latter Day Saints and Muslims, therefore Latter Day Saints and Muslims are basically the same religion." Obviously, that would not be even close to true. Likewise, you can point out and emphasize all the bits and pieces where Catholics and Latter Day Saints agree on some point or another, but there are far too many instances where the Latter Day Saint point of view is entirely in opposition to the Catholic point of view, and aligns more closely with the Protestant viewpoint. Mostly, I just don't understand where you're going with this very poorly established point of yours. What is you underlying point exactly?

More specific to your point, the LDS Church has vastly differing views on baptism when compared to the Catholic Church. Sprinkling vs Immersion. Infant Baptism vs No Infant Baptism. Latter Day Saints are better aligned with certain groups within the Reformation on baptism -- namely those groups who sought to significantly rewrite how and when baptism was done in a person's life. We do not align well with those groups who sought little or no change on practices regarding baptism.

When it comes to Creeds and Ecumenical Councils, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is about as non-Catholic as you can get. We reject all of them. Some may have truths written into them, but from our perspective, they are not from God and are not authoritative. They are "best guess" theology at best and quite often more influenced by politics than by any consideration for what God thinks on a given matter.

To AnthonyB's point, I have to wholeheartedly agree. Either the Council of Nicaea is authoritative or it is not. I think that the council sought to do the best that it could under the circumstances. Most of the Bishops involved meant well, I've no doubt. But did that council of bishops have the right to establish a list of "do's and dont's" and "rights or wrongs" encompassing all Christian belief? If you affirm their God given right to do those things, yet you disagree with some parts of the Nicene Creed and Council, then you're creating a logical contradiction. Either their conclusions were from God or they were not.

I do hate to be a stickler on this point, but it leads directly into the number 1 lame excuse that Traditional Christianity uses to try to paint "Mormons" as "non-Christians." (The Nature of God and the Doctrine of the Trinity.) A Catholic can actually hold the line and insist upon the acceptance of the entirety of the decisions of the Council and subsequent councils -- or at least a logical progression of authoritative decisions made at Councils. Most Protestants disagree with at least some of the Nicene Creed. So the basis used by Protestants for calling "Mormons" non-Christian is that we are doing exactly the same thing Protestants are doing -- rejecting parts of the Council of Nicaea and other Councils. This has always been very puzzling for me and nobody seems to ever be able to provide a satisfactory explanation. Protestantism is founded upon dissent and disagreement with Orthodoxy, yet they are very keen to attack and belittle another newer religion for disagreeing with Orthodoxy on some points.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Faded
grammar and spelling

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

Sorry to be pendantic but the first Christian creed is in the bible. "Jesus is Lord" Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:13. However you have to understand that the Greek word "Lord" is used in the LXX for God (or YHW$) So they would have understood it as "Jesus is Jehovah". Inicidently it is the only creed I hold to be authoratative and infallible.

It is not just the "for remission of sins" that is a problem but the "one baptism". Zwinglian baptism suppporters (ie reformed christians) have to have two baptism, a spiritual one and the physical ordinance one, what I include as one baptism with two aspects you have as two distinct and unjoinable things.

Problem is that until 1520 when Zwingli thought it up not a single person in the preceeding 1500 years had ever believed that. Zwingli himself admits that not a single "doctor" had seen it his way, not Tertullian, Justin Matyr, Augustine or Luther. There is not the slightest support for Zwingli baptismal solution before he thought it up. No creed, no council, no theologian had ever attempted to deny that there was "one baptism".

Edited May 27, 2009 by AnthonyB

[Faded]

Regarding the authority of creeds, I’ll cite John H. Leith’s Creeds of the Churches (sorry, it’s a book and I have no link)—

It remains to be noticed again that creeds do not receive their authority merely through the fiat of ecclesiastical authority. H. E. W. Turner has pointed out the importance of the common-sense wisdom of the Christian community, which in the long run is sounder than the action of church councils or the judgment of scholars. Creeds become authoritative when they become the common-sense wisdom, the consensus of the Christian community.

What constitutes "consensus"? Everyone unanimously agreeing (which never happened on almost any doctrinal matter) or majority rule winning? With all due respect, whichever the case may be, I cannot fathom eternal truth being subject to a popularity contest amongst fallible mortals. One of the the truest statements ever: "What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right." The consensus (of sorts) of the Jewish scholars did not ultimately lead them to truth. It led them to the disaster of missing their own Messiah when he came to them. So how should a "the most popular theology wins" policy hope to see any better results?

Granted, I might be entirely misunderstanding the quote. If that is the case, then please offer a better explanation of "Creeds become authoritative when they become the common-sense wisdom, the consensus of the Christian community." I suppose that I really need to get some grasp on the legitimacy of authority for any and all Ecumenical Councils, etc.

[ErikJohnson]

Erik,

Sorry to be pendantic but the first Christian creed is in the bible. "Jesus is Lord" Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:13. However you have to understand that the Greek word "Lord" is used in the LXX for God (or YHW$) So they would have understood it as "Jesus is Jehovah". Inicidently it is the only creed I hold to be authoratative and infallible.

It is not just the "for remission of sins" that is a problem but the "one baptism". Zwinglian baptism suppporters (ie reformed christians) have to have two baptism, a spiritual one and the physical ordinance one, what I include as one baptism with two aspects you have as two distinct and unjoinable things.

Problem is that until 1520 when Zwingli thought it up not a single person in the preceeding 1500 years had ever believed that. Zwingli himself admits that not a single "doctor" had seen it his way, not Tertullian, Justin Matyr, Augustine or Luther. There is not the slightest support for Zwingli baptismal solution before he thought it up. No creed, no council, no theologian had ever attempted to deny that there was "one baptism".

Hey AnthonyB--

I don’t mind “pedantic” as long as there’s some insight with it—and I have not found your posts wanting in that regard. I didn’t know the Greek word rendered “Lord” in our English New Testaments was the same word for God in the Septuagint. But knowing that adds to the argument (if further evidence were needed).

However, it appears there must have been some ambiguity in the word because Jesus is referred to as Lord a number of times in the Gospels—and it doesn’t seem like the context is God each time. And when Thomas beholds the risen Christ and proclaims “my Lord and my God”—it doesn’t seem like his intent was to be redundant. Based on this, I wouldn't think it necessary to revise my revious post.

Regrettably, I know nothing of the ancient languages. But if I were going to make such a study—Greek would be it.

Regarding Zwingli’s observation that there was such a thing in the New Testament as “spiritual baptism” apart from “physical water baptism”—I think he’s right. I hadn’t thought of it in the context of the Nicene Creed—but I agree it could be seen as problematic.

Regards,

--Erik

[jblake]

1.) Personal Study: There are not enough people who deign

to call themselves Christians who never bother to study for themselves' date='

[/quote']

If you rephrased that as either "There are not enough people who deign

to call themselves Christians who both to study for themselves", or

"There are too many people who ..." I'd agree with it. (The rephrasing

would also be more congruent with the rest of the paragraph.

The issue isn't paid v unpaid clergy, but rather how integrated mutual

edification is within the congregation.

How seriously did any Pre-Reformation, Reformation or

Post-Reformation movement ever consider the question: “Okay, so the

Catholic Church is false. Now what?

Pre-Reformation: Hussites probably would have done so, had they not

gotten bogged down in fighting the crusaders.

Something that few people appreciate, is how much control the Catholic

church had over people in Europe, between the fall of Rome, and the

Reformation. For all practical purposes, to defy the church was to defy

the state, with either execution for sedition, or excommunication by

Rome, as the immediate result. (Luther was lucky, in that the German

Princes were being bankrupted by a Pope that was very obviously

violating the fundamental tenants of Catholic Christianity.)

Very few people will argue against the status quo, when doing so will

result in them being killed.

Post Reformation: The Restoration Movement in general. Albeit not a

denomination, _Church of Christ (Non-institutional)_ would meet your

criteria. _Church of Christ (A Capella)_ and _Church of Christ

(Instrumental)_ would probably also meet your criteria. (I'll grant

that they are not denominations.) Arguably, Landmark Baptist Church

also meets those criteria.

See item number 1. Ultimately, mainstream Protestantism denies

the notion that there ever was a Total Apostasy,

The Mainline Protestant denominations are:

* Episcopalian --- more specifically ECUSA;

* Presbyterian --- more specifically PCUSA;

* Methodist --- more specifically UMC;

* Lutheran --- more specifically ELCA;

The Seven Sisters of American Protestantism are:

* American Baptist Churches (USA) - ABCUSA;

* Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ) - DoC;

* United Church of Christ - UCC;

* United Methodist Church - UMC;

* Presbyterian Church (USA) - PCUSA;

* Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - ECLA;

* Episcopal Church of the United States of America - ECUSA;

The concept that there was a Total Apostasy would be an anathema to most

(?all) of them.

The greater congregational autonomy is, the more likely the congregation

is to state that there was Total Apostasy, and give criteria defining

when it occured.

In those congregations that teach that there was a Total Apostasy, their

explanation is that there always was a group of people that either

worshipped separately from Catholic Christianity, or tried to correct

Catholic Christianity from within Catholicism. In both instances, "The

gates of Hell swung forth from the Catholic Church, with Satan riding

forth, to destroy those who proclaimed the Good News."

you’d have to conclude that God will let a whole lot of

corruption and nonsensical practices exist without bothering to correct

them.

The doctrines, beliefs, and practices that led up to the church being in

apostasy took centuries to develop. Even so, there were those who tried

to correct things, being killed by the Church, for their labours, as a

way of thanks.

The biggest trouble with Protestantism that frankly confuses the

hell out of me, is the notion that some Ecumenical councils are

authoritative and some are not.

Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and Oriental Christianity

have specific rules governing whether or not a specific council is both

ecumenical, and authoritative. As such, there is no logical reason to

require Protestant Christianity to accept any council that claims to be

both ecumenical, and authoritative.

Why is the Council of Nicaea almost universally accepted as

authoritative and

The primary significance of Nicaea is the creed attributed to it. More

precisely, the second version of that creed. For all practical purposes,

one has to reject all creeds, to be logically consistent in rejecting

all ecumenical councils.

Historically, Christianity has been a creedal religion: This is what I

believe, blah, blah, blah. Anybody who doesn't believe what I believe

is not a Christian. (One can have the "anybody who does not

believe what I believe is not a Christian, without creeds. However, that

position tends to be more difficult to justify.)(Historically, Creeds

have served as tools to divide, and destroy, rather than their claimed

unify and consolidate.)

The secondary significance of Nicaea, and the rest of the ecumenical

councils, is that they provide support for rejecting theological

positions that are currently unpopular, but for which there is some

scriptural support. (The usual response is along the lines of: "The

church has always rejected that position. See this verse in the Bible,

and how it was reinforced by this Council, and this Early Church Father,

etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile, when one sits down and examines the

evidence, the position was not always the one held by the Early Church

Fathers. Taking your example of Trinitarianism, the majority of the

Pre-Nicene Fathers were Modalists, not Trinitarians. (Even at Nicaea,

Modalists outnumbered Trinitarians by roughly 3 to 2. Adherents of the

big "heresy" that Niceae tackled, were almost equal in numbers to

Modalists and Trinitarians combined.It was only after the third

ecumenical council, that Trinitarianism emerged triumphant, with no

opposition until the beginning of the Pentacostal Movement.)

By rejecting Tradition in tota, one swims in a sea that is, at best,

utterly alien. Tradition is a very hard thing to reject.

Mainstream Protestantism: accept Councils 1-7 with reservations

(counting Nicaea I as the first council of course.)

Reformed Christianity recognizes them, but downplays their significance.

The Protestant movements that grew out of the Anabaptists do not accept

those councils. Baptists, and related movements don't accept those

councils. _Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ)_, and _United Church

of Christ_ are probably the only groups to emerge from the Restoration

Movement, that accept those Councils. (They also explored, and embraced

"in non-essential, liberty" aspect of the Restoration Movement, more

than the other Restoration Movement groups did.)

Mainstream Christianity today still considers all such groups

to be so heretical that they defy their right to call themselves

“Christian.” On what basis?

With roughly 1400 years of Christianity proclaiming a Trinity, and

rejecting everything else as heretical, it is an idea that has become

ingrained with Christianity. The usual alternative is Unitarianism,

which, whilst having some scriptural support, is also contradicted by

some passages. The other suspect is monophysite, which is merely a

refinement of Trinitarianism, albeit one that is harder to grok.

Modalism was virtually ignored until the beginning of the Pentacostal

Movement. This history serves to construct a bias favouring

Trinitarianism, and excluding all else. It is very hard to conceive of

C, when all one has heard of is "A", and "Not-A".

More to the point, if the governing body at Nicaea was valid,

then would that not establish the authority of the entirety of them all?

a) Orthodox Christianity has Canon Law that defines the requirements

for a Church Council to be binding upon all. (Case in Point: The Synod

of Jerusalem is not usually considered to be a binding Church Council

within Orthodox Christianity, because of certain technicalities that

were not met. However, that Council served to define, and refute

Protestant Christianity with its attacks on Orthodox Christianity.

b) Other than who called them, what was the difference between the

Council of Rome, and the Council of Niceae, that made the latter

authoritative, but not the former? That difference explains why both

Catholic and Orthodox Christianity reject the Council of Rome, even

though it dealt with issues that are greater than anything that has been

discussed at any council since then.

The Body of Christ: ... Vast differences in doctrine are not

important.” Where can we find this specifically taught in the Bible?

Well, it’s simply not in there.

It is a response to "At what point is something an essential, rather

than a non-essential?"

Is using a musical instrument in Church a mortal sin? Yes, according to

_Church of Christ (A Capella), whilst Mars Hill Church would respond

with "say what?" proceeding to carry out their contemporary worship

service with electric guitars, drums, synthesizers, and other

instruments more commonly associated with Death metal and FuturePop,

than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

The example might seem silly, but _Church of Christ (A Capella)_ is just

one example of a group of people saying, "This is an essential", in the

face of people wondering why, and how it could be anything but a

non-essential. Repeat this across ten thousand points of doctrine, and

you'll have ten thousand different groups, drawing a line saying "this

is an essential".

An extreme example of "essentials" is two groups who doctrines,

theology, and practices are identical, except on one point: Group A

baptizes in a river. Group B baptizes in a baptismal font in their

church building. Group A condemns Group B for going against the

teachings of the Bible, citing John the Baptist and The Ethiopian

Eunuch, as evidence from the Bible, and the Didache as evidence of what

the Early Christian Church did. Group B points out that river isn't

running water year round, and furthermore, by having the baptismal font

in the church, the person can be immediately baptized. However, if you

want to baptize in the river, that is fine by us. (I'm trying to imagine

somebody getting baptized in the Jordan River in mid-January. Or even in

mid-July.(How can it get so polluted so close to its starting point.))

It’s a Post-Reformation attempt to ask the whole of

Christianity, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

One of the slogans of the Restoration Movement was "in essentials,

unity. In non-essentials, liberty". The crucial issue is what

differentiates an essential, from a non-essential. Trying to define

each and every thing as "essential", when all one has to go on, is

Tradition, is an exercise in futility. (Orthodox Christianity has

always recognized that. Catholic Christianity only recognized that,

after being ripped apart during the Reformation.)

God never taught that “everything is true as long as some group

thinks it is true.”

True.

The flip side is that the Bible doesn't lay out a precise,

specific set of beliefs and practices, that are utterly unambigious. Is

one's interpretation and understanding of the doctrine and practice

correct? Oriental, Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity have a hierarchy

that states: "This is what Tradition teaches. This is what Tradition

practices." The closest that Protestant Christianity comes, is in the

magisterial branch. Even then, it is up to the individual to accept, or

reject the doctrine, teaching, or practice.

Instead of getting tangled up in a fruitless quest, it is a tacit

agreement to disagree, but ignore those differences for the task at hand.

Authority Comes From the Bible:

That can be understood in at least four different ways.

The Bible is the receptacle of all truth and that through

prayer and reading the Bible, every question can be answered. If the

Bible alone was sufficient to establish all truth, then there would only

be one Protestant religion in the world.

This ignores the differences between acceptance of private revelation on

a personal level, and acceptance of private revelation on a corporate

level.

It also ignores the differences in understanding

Since the word “Bible” never appears in any of the text of the

Bible, it would be extremely difficult to substantiate that the Bible

itself ever teaching any such thing.

This gets awkward. Depending upon how the Biblical Canon is defined,

and specific pericopes within it are understood, the Bible is both

self-defined, and claims authority greater than that of Tradition. (The

hard part is determining which books are being referred to, since they

are not listed by name, but by subject matter. In one of the Gospels,

Jesus implicitly endorses the TaNaKh. In one of the Pauline Epistles,

there is an implicit endorsement of Maccabees.) In the Catholic

Epistles, the Pauline Epistles are endorsed as "Scripture". What they

all lack, is a specific list of books.

Then there is the notion of Priesthood Authority coming from the

Bible. Again, the Bible never teaches any such thing. I’m not entirely

sure where that concept originates.

That has two sources:

*The Priesthood of Aaron;

*The requirements of the Roman Empire, after making Christianity the

official State Religion;

Conflate the two, either by design or accident, and the theology

develops, even though there are passages in the NT that contradict it.

demonstrate that the Bible teaches that the Bible is all the

written truth God will ever provide His children

Depending upon how, and which books one selects for one's canon, this can be either implicitly, or explicitly demonstrated.

It’s an interesting change of gears from the 5 Solas to TULIP to

describe the overall Protestant Reformation.

"Protestant Christianity" is a label of convenience, applied to a number

of usually similar theological positions. The acceptance/rejection of

the individual points of TULIP and the Remonstrances make a much clearer

differentiation between the theological positions of the various groups

ascribed to Protestant Christianity, than redefining each of the Five

Solas for each of the different theological positions within Christianity.

It may do a better job of describing the Reformation, but there

are exceptions to TULIP as well:

That is why the theology of the specific organization has to be examined

against both TULIP and the Remonstrances. The Restoration Movement is

probably the most significant branch that rejects both.The primary

reason it gets dumped into "Protestant Christianity", is that it

emphatically rejects both Catholic and Orthodox Theology. Few realize

that it also rejects TULIP, The Remonstrances, and the Five Solas.

TULIP:

* Total Depravity;

* Unconditional Election;

* Limited Atonement;

* Irresistible Grace;

* Perseverance of the Saints

Remonstrances:

* Total Depravity;

* Election is conditional upon faith in Christ;

* Unlimited Atonement;

* Free will to resist God's grace;

* Preservation of the saints is conditional upon the believer remaining

in Christ;

Counter-Remonstrances:

* Predestination is conditional;

* Atonement is in intention universal;

* Man cannot exercise saving faith;

* The grace of God is resistible;

* Believers can fall from grace;

Five Solas:

* Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone");

* Sola fide ("by faith alone");

* Sola gratia ("by grace alone");

* Solus Christus ("Christ alone");

* Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone");

jonathon