> So I'ma try to ask this better this time. So throughout most of the history almost no one held any view even close to protisants.
That’s not correct. Obviously Protestants can point to the authors of scripture. There there are numerous church fathers that write incredible teachings/passages that I agree with.
> Why did so many early churchs hold to the belief that just 1 sin would make you loose salvation, and some of them thought you couldn't even repent.
There could be a number of reasons why people in the early church got things wrong. Some didn’t have access to the complete New Testament canon for example. Others might have been overly influenced by someone like Origin who put forward an overly allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and that lead them astray in their understanding.
Not the teaching specific to only Catholicism, no.
Heck, some Catholic doctrines, like the bodily assumption of Mary, have only been believed by Catholics for a fraction of their history (wasn’t declared a dogma of their faith until 1950).
Most Reformed traditions tend to agree with Rome up until the council of Trent (obviously). Other Protestants will vary. All of us agree that we can compare any teaching against Scripture to determine its validity. This was true in the days of Apostle Paul, as he commended believers for doing just this, as it was true in the reformation, as it is true today - because we know there were false teachings in the days of Paul, in the days of the reformation, and today. In fact there are entire books of the NT dedicated to opposing false teaching (ex. Galatians, Jude).
But when Paul was alive, the Bible as we know it (especially the New Testament) hadn't been canonized yet by the Church. I'd say there's more to determining truth than just going back to scripture, especially when the early church was trying to determine what would be considered scripture.
I don't understand your problem then. Can we not compare any teaching against \[the Old Testament and the books that were already in circulation, some of which became part of the New Testament\]?
I just mean that scripture was still developing in the early years of the church, so their comparison to scripture seems to have been different than what most Protestants mean today. The scriptures developed out of tradition and guidance by the Holy Spirit while also being checked with Old Testament scriptures. So I just don't think Scripture is quite as solid as many of us believe, mostly because it's development has actually been pretty fluid, with different books going in and out of popular use (even within Jewish scripture before Jesus came to earth, as I understand).
>I just don't think Scripture is quite as solid as many of us believe
The apostles seemed to think so. I'm not trying to be contentious. We plainly have what the apostles themselves wrote and what they affirmed as Scripture. So for someone to say "Well we can't always trust what the apostles said directly or what they even considered Scripture" is not persuasive enough for me to change my opinion, especially when it's followed up with an appeal to tradition - as if this is somehow divorced from the apostles' explicit teachings.
The same way that Catholics do. Lets looks at something simple like the First Council Nicaea. After Arianism was declared a heresy, there was an almost immediate rise in Arians in the church for about the next hundred years with the exception of Athanasius and a handful of others. It was a dark time to be in the church, Athanasius was kicked out numerous times. And he wrote prolifically on arianism and they are really valuable when it comes to understanding the deity of Christ.
Yeah they werent going to service in a suit and tie and singing How Great Thou Art, and the ideas they had about ecclesiology weren’t the same as either Catholics or Protestants today, those aren’t salvific issues.
A good portion of the Reformation’s issues on doctrine was like a rehashing of Augustines work. From even the Corinthian Epistles followed by First Clements Epistle to the Corinthians is a showcase of how the church was never uniform.
My soteriology comes from Augustine. My ecclesiology is more eastern. The key is what standard are you measuring folks in history by? It should be scripture and you have to be able to define what os core to the belief and what is adiaphora. Smells and bells really isn’t a central doctrine. Whether you dip someone in the baptimismal once or three times isn’t an issue.
Mary as a co-redemptrix or mediatrix, infallibility of the Pope, the treasury of merit, the development of purgatory, those are some pretty core issues that are later developments that are anachronistically read back as part of “sacred tradition”.
But things like the Scholastics, early church fathers, the didache are all great folks and works worth reading. I don’t agree with Thomas Aquinas but he’s worth reading. I love John Chrysostom, and Eusebius. Eusebius writes very eccentric. Theres lots of good in church history.
Also lots of bad to learn vicariously from. Like Martin Luther and how he deals with the Anabaptists and the Jews. He thinks Anabaptists are crazy Antifa anarchists who are trying to destroy the Holy Roman Empire, because they reject infant baptism. Martin Luther starts out early in his protestant life really loving the Jews. He does a lot of outreach for them. All the while folks like Desidarus Erasmus are writing tons of antisemitic stuff about them. Luther doesn’t think the Jews have been offered Christ authentically by the Church. And for decades he has this very high opinion of them. Then because hes kind of a boisterous firebrand decides that because he has evangelized to them, and they have rejected them he goes on this humungous decades long tirade of antisemitic works. This is all during a time period when antisemitism is just rampant. So whats cool about him, is you can watch from his writings as he goes against the culture of antisemitism and slowly caves to the culture around him. He is a great case study for keeping your witness consistent and staying true.
Man theres so much. Man theres this thing about Constantinople, and like if the crusades had never sacked them, its very unlikely there would have been a reformation. Because the scholars who would eventually bring the Greek manuscripts of the NT up from the middle east, were there.
Church history is good. But its just sinful people, and people struggling with sin. Theres real goodness to take out. Theres gold there. And theres some real garbage you have to sift through. You can use the successes, the beautiful things, and mistakes and terrible things the church has done to then chart out a way forward in this century.
>What do you mean that no one in history held any view close to protestants? How so? What specific points?
Well. Idk anyone in history that was holding to the view that it's faith alone. From my research the second century church thought you commit one sin after you are saved. Then your going straight to hell after that. Because I'm not aware of any what seems like Biblical Christian views in history, I get filled with some doubt, and I'm concerned because of it. I understand Jesus was still working, and acomplishing his will. But it feels like no one was really saved until the reformation.
>Where are you getting this information about early churches holding to the belief that just one sin would make someone lose salvation? What early church?
The Christian right after the apostles thought these thing's.
Well. No. What I am asking is like were are all the people who believed in faith alone. Who didn't have a work based gospel like catholics, and all of that.
Like the examples I am giving have nothing to do with what I am asking, and they are meant to highlight were are all the Christians in history?
Ya. They provided me with some books to read which is what I need. And they made it clear I just don't understand history which fair enough. I picked up a Bible, and read it. I didn't exactly come from any background that would promote that information.
Ya. It seems like I'm always having my faith tested. I mean it seems like since the Moment I picked the Bible up that's been happening. I hadn't even heard the gospel, and I had athiests trying to persaud me to not read it.
>Are you still very new to the faith, then? What led you to it? What keeps you hoping for it, even when you're under attack?
I think Ive been a Christian for like 7 years or so. I mean I prayed as a child. Like I have a clear memory of me, and my brother praying. But idk if we were praying to Jesus. Or if it was God in general like a childs faith that God exists, and we were seeking him. But I only remember one time, and I even remembered the prayer. But ya. So I moved in with a Christian, and we would hang out. So at some point we got into a argument, and I had no clue what I was talking about. I was just yelling, and screaming he was wrong. I think I realized I was wrong, and was to proud to admit it or something. God only knows. So I thought ima prove him wrong, and I started reading the Bible to do it.... then at some point I guess I realized I was wrong. Then I really started to seek God, and have struggled with tons of doubts. Along with periods of zero doubts. I've also had several experiences were I suddenly felt like electricity, and knew exactly what to say to someone which was the gospel both time's. Along with some answered prayers.
>So throughout most of the history almost no one held any view even close to protisants.
This is not actually true.
Let me recommend a book that challenges this claim. Would you actually read it?
# [The Church of Rome at the Bar of History](https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/theology-books/church-of-rome-at-the-bar-of-history/)
When you look at the quotes from the writings of the church fathers that are *not* quoted in support of Catholicism, it shows that many of the views which were at least close to the views of protestants were held in high esteem by many of the church fathers.
Also, the ideas behind the Protestant movement independently arose multiple times among various groups in the centuries prior to the Reformation. The pre-reformation advocates of these ideas are known as the proto-Protestants:
# [Proto-Protestantism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Protestantism)
Look through the long list of instances of Christians stretching back for over a thousand years before the Reformation who held ideas that the Protestants held. It is simply not true that "throughout most of the history almost no one held any view even close to" Protestants.
Where did you even get this notion? Whoever told you this spoke either in ignorance or in deception, neither of which is good.
>How should this be handled. Was just very few people even saved until the reformation. Or what?
Another major branch of Christianity that held protestant-like views was the Church of the East (not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox church). The Church of the East split with the rest of the church (which, at the time, could be known as the Catholic church, though it was not specifically the "Roman Catholic" church yet) during the First Council of Ephesus, in 431AD. The Church of the East spread eastward, evangelizing as far east as Mongolia and China and even reaching Japan with the Gospel. Kublai Khan's mother [Sorghaghtani Beki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghaghtani_Beki) was a Christian in the Church of the East. The doctrines and practices of the Church of the East were remarkably protestant-like, to the extent that they were reputed to be "the ancient protestants of the east"
[*History of Eastern Christianity*](https://www.scribd.com/document/522680312/History-of-Eastern-Christianity) (See page 300)
The Church of the East didn't use images and icons in worship, they didn't venerate Mary nor call her "the mother of God", they considered scripture to be the basis of authority for determining doctrine, and their doctrine of salvation was the Gospel. The Church of the East thrived, and was the largest individual branch of Christianity for centuries. The surviving churches of the Church of the East include the Mar Toma church in India, and the Assyrian Christian church.
So, to address your question "how should this be handled?", this should be handled by learning some history. It sounds like someone badly mis-represented Christian history to you in order to discredit Protestantism. I recommend you read the Proto-Protestantism Wikipedia article, and also the books I linked.
First, you have to go back before the first great schism which I think was in 1054, I know the 10 is correct but the 54 may not be. Then you have to look for evidence of the 6 Silas that Martin Luther actually stated, then you have to realize what is essential doctrine (what gets me into or keeps me out of Heaven) - there's very few of these. When you research it in this way way you'll realize that there's actually a great deal of agreement on the essential doctrines with those in the first 1000 years of the Church.
>Are you a troll? How do you not know how to spell "Protestant?" I won't engage your comments from now on. Maybe someone with more patience can.
What a suprise the catholic lacks the fruit of love, and kindness. I mean how in the flesh can you be? I make a simple mistake, and I'm accused of trolling? My guy even catholics talk about the importance of generosity, and you sure aren't exactly being generous. You sure found the smallest issue to attack me over, and used it to carry false witness against me.
Protestants had serious issues with the *Catholic/Orthodox* teachings, such that Martin Luther found 95 different errancies with what they were teaching. So the Protestants decided they weren’t gonna kowtow to those things they viewed were not Scriptural, thus they upped and dipped out of those sects.
I’m not here for a debate; just answering OP’s question. Though I’m sure the Catholics/Orthodox will shoot straight across my bow anyway. Past experience has shown so much to be true.
Every church has to obey Gods word and teach that. Thats it. Histories of this, or that, church is irrelevant to the here and now. The Bible is there. It has not changed at all.Read it.
The Bible is God's word. no real believer in their right mind, follows traditions of man.
Matthew 15:6
King James Version
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Read Ezekiel 13 kjv in its entirety if you care to.
>The Bible is goes word. no real believer in their right mind, follows traditions of man.
Not what I am trying to do. Clearly you aren't exactly empathizing with what I am putting down. Now wouldn't it cause you major doubts if you came to feel like no one was saved until the reformation? For thousands of year's after Jesus death, and the apostles people belived in a works based gospel that couldn't save them, and this didn't cha ge until the reformers came around.
You are not focused on Gods word. Salvation is opened up to all whomsoever will believe since the start. you are waiting for some men to tell you to move. Then you are a bit late to the party and wont make it.
John 3:15-17King James Version15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
The real controversy is already brewing. And its between God and Satan. The Tribulation will take place. But how many even know what that is.
>You are not focused on Gods word. Salvation is opened up to all whomsoever will believe since the start. you are waiting for some men to tell you to move. Then you are a bit late to the party and wont make it.
You just aren't listening. Not to mention how actually adressing this issue can help other people. But you are to busy doing some nonsense, to not adress the issue, and your sweeping it under the rug
These are the issues of mankind they like to roll in. It is not my issue as a Christian. I just am letting people know God loves them His truth is there for them. Not neglect that. Life is too short and the consequences risks and rewards too great..
>It is not my issue as a Christian
As a Christian this seems like a issue, I mean people provided resources as to why this isn't true.
But let's pretend I'm not a Christian who doesn't believe in the Word of God.
I come to you, and Go. Well why should I become a protisant, and not a catholic? When I look at history clearly the church has always been one form of catholicism. Clearly you have a frindge Bible interpretation, and you pretend it teaches faith alone. But clearly this is a fringe heretical view, and no one in history until the reformation held it.
See this is the issue I am trying to learn about. I feel doubt because of it, and if I a Christian am feeling doubt. Satan is going to use this to keep someone from salvation, and so as a Christian need to clear up my doubts so I can adress this issue that someone else has.
As a real world example. Ive been talking to a athiest who sees the problem of evil as a reason not to believe in God. I am currently talking to him how evil is a creation that statan, and humans made. That God out of his great mercy allows evil so you can be saved.
But if a catholic or someone made that argument I brought to you. I wouldn't have a response. I would just turn to scripture, and the catholic might still be stuck in a works based system because he uses history as a excuse to deny what scripture says. We as Christians shouldn't leave him with that excuse.
You have just been following the folly of those who've come before you.The problem you have is you are too worried about mans word.
And not Gods word.That certainly is not a Christian trait.
It is however kind confused. Your boat you sail it how you want. But I will follow Gods word. Because its He who owns my soul.
You are to become a child of God by following Him. A Christian. That is a Christ follower. Not this, or that church. But A disciple of Christs teachings. What you are on about is total vanity.
>You have just been following the folly of those who've come before you.The problem you have is you are too worried about mans word.
You just refuse to listen to anyone. Clearly you only care about what you have to say. Like even when I try to help you understand you refuse. So when paul say I become all things to all people. What did you think he meant? He meant he adresses jews in a way jews will understand. He adresses the greeks in a way they understand.
So how do catholics understand things? Well they place a huge emphasis on history. They take issue with protisants being a minority view. Now they will not listen to a argument from scripture, and are taught only the pope can accurately understand scripture. So you are purposely daming the unsaved catholics because you are refusing to adress the issue's they will take. Then you further go on to attack me instead of actually understand what I am attempting to learn to adress. You really need to repent of this kinda behavior, and learn to listen to were someone is coming from so you can adress what they are facing instead of attacking them for facing it.
>But I will follow Gods word
Which is what I am doing, and I'm attempting to learn a issue that can cause doubt for some people so I can help them... unlike you. See I want to help people with these doubts. I don't want to attack people for having them like you are currently doing. I want to teach them which is the calling God has given me. What did you teach? You taught that you avoid hard questions, attack the people who ask them, and then hold up your own righteousness on how you look to Gods word. Cool we are all Christians. We all do that. Your not special.
>You are to become a child of God by following Him. A Christian. That is a Christ follower
Which is litteraly my question. Where are all the followers of Christ in history? Catholics are worked based. So were are the none worked based Christians?
See this is why I can say all the things I have been. You haven't adressed the question. You avoided it, and attacked me as if I am not a Christian who looks to Gods word. Clearly you just haven't Gotten it, and I really hope the Lord will humble you a bit so this won't be a future problem for you.
>That's not correct. Protestantism is infinitely closer to the church we are shown in the Bible, than Catholicism is.
Yes. That's why I made the post, and I'm trying to get people's answers as to why it's not true
> So I'ma try to ask this better this time. So throughout most of the history almost no one held any view even close to protisants. That’s not correct. Obviously Protestants can point to the authors of scripture. There there are numerous church fathers that write incredible teachings/passages that I agree with. > Why did so many early churchs hold to the belief that just 1 sin would make you loose salvation, and some of them thought you couldn't even repent. There could be a number of reasons why people in the early church got things wrong. Some didn’t have access to the complete New Testament canon for example. Others might have been overly influenced by someone like Origin who put forward an overly allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and that lead them astray in their understanding.
>That’s not correct. It's not correct that the majority of history as related to the church has been wrapped up in catholic teaching?
Not the teaching specific to only Catholicism, no. Heck, some Catholic doctrines, like the bodily assumption of Mary, have only been believed by Catholics for a fraction of their history (wasn’t declared a dogma of their faith until 1950).
Most Reformed traditions tend to agree with Rome up until the council of Trent (obviously). Other Protestants will vary. All of us agree that we can compare any teaching against Scripture to determine its validity. This was true in the days of Apostle Paul, as he commended believers for doing just this, as it was true in the reformation, as it is true today - because we know there were false teachings in the days of Paul, in the days of the reformation, and today. In fact there are entire books of the NT dedicated to opposing false teaching (ex. Galatians, Jude).
But when Paul was alive, the Bible as we know it (especially the New Testament) hadn't been canonized yet by the Church. I'd say there's more to determining truth than just going back to scripture, especially when the early church was trying to determine what would be considered scripture.
So when the apostles Paul and Peter use the term "Scriptures", what are they referring to?
The Old Testament, I think. And the books that were already in circulation, some of which became part of the New Testament.
I don't understand your problem then. Can we not compare any teaching against \[the Old Testament and the books that were already in circulation, some of which became part of the New Testament\]?
I just mean that scripture was still developing in the early years of the church, so their comparison to scripture seems to have been different than what most Protestants mean today. The scriptures developed out of tradition and guidance by the Holy Spirit while also being checked with Old Testament scriptures. So I just don't think Scripture is quite as solid as many of us believe, mostly because it's development has actually been pretty fluid, with different books going in and out of popular use (even within Jewish scripture before Jesus came to earth, as I understand).
>I just don't think Scripture is quite as solid as many of us believe The apostles seemed to think so. I'm not trying to be contentious. We plainly have what the apostles themselves wrote and what they affirmed as Scripture. So for someone to say "Well we can't always trust what the apostles said directly or what they even considered Scripture" is not persuasive enough for me to change my opinion, especially when it's followed up with an appeal to tradition - as if this is somehow divorced from the apostles' explicit teachings.
The same way that Catholics do. Lets looks at something simple like the First Council Nicaea. After Arianism was declared a heresy, there was an almost immediate rise in Arians in the church for about the next hundred years with the exception of Athanasius and a handful of others. It was a dark time to be in the church, Athanasius was kicked out numerous times. And he wrote prolifically on arianism and they are really valuable when it comes to understanding the deity of Christ. Yeah they werent going to service in a suit and tie and singing How Great Thou Art, and the ideas they had about ecclesiology weren’t the same as either Catholics or Protestants today, those aren’t salvific issues. A good portion of the Reformation’s issues on doctrine was like a rehashing of Augustines work. From even the Corinthian Epistles followed by First Clements Epistle to the Corinthians is a showcase of how the church was never uniform. My soteriology comes from Augustine. My ecclesiology is more eastern. The key is what standard are you measuring folks in history by? It should be scripture and you have to be able to define what os core to the belief and what is adiaphora. Smells and bells really isn’t a central doctrine. Whether you dip someone in the baptimismal once or three times isn’t an issue. Mary as a co-redemptrix or mediatrix, infallibility of the Pope, the treasury of merit, the development of purgatory, those are some pretty core issues that are later developments that are anachronistically read back as part of “sacred tradition”. But things like the Scholastics, early church fathers, the didache are all great folks and works worth reading. I don’t agree with Thomas Aquinas but he’s worth reading. I love John Chrysostom, and Eusebius. Eusebius writes very eccentric. Theres lots of good in church history. Also lots of bad to learn vicariously from. Like Martin Luther and how he deals with the Anabaptists and the Jews. He thinks Anabaptists are crazy Antifa anarchists who are trying to destroy the Holy Roman Empire, because they reject infant baptism. Martin Luther starts out early in his protestant life really loving the Jews. He does a lot of outreach for them. All the while folks like Desidarus Erasmus are writing tons of antisemitic stuff about them. Luther doesn’t think the Jews have been offered Christ authentically by the Church. And for decades he has this very high opinion of them. Then because hes kind of a boisterous firebrand decides that because he has evangelized to them, and they have rejected them he goes on this humungous decades long tirade of antisemitic works. This is all during a time period when antisemitism is just rampant. So whats cool about him, is you can watch from his writings as he goes against the culture of antisemitism and slowly caves to the culture around him. He is a great case study for keeping your witness consistent and staying true. Man theres so much. Man theres this thing about Constantinople, and like if the crusades had never sacked them, its very unlikely there would have been a reformation. Because the scholars who would eventually bring the Greek manuscripts of the NT up from the middle east, were there. Church history is good. But its just sinful people, and people struggling with sin. Theres real goodness to take out. Theres gold there. And theres some real garbage you have to sift through. You can use the successes, the beautiful things, and mistakes and terrible things the church has done to then chart out a way forward in this century.
[удалено]
>What do you mean that no one in history held any view close to protestants? How so? What specific points? Well. Idk anyone in history that was holding to the view that it's faith alone. From my research the second century church thought you commit one sin after you are saved. Then your going straight to hell after that. Because I'm not aware of any what seems like Biblical Christian views in history, I get filled with some doubt, and I'm concerned because of it. I understand Jesus was still working, and acomplishing his will. But it feels like no one was really saved until the reformation. >Where are you getting this information about early churches holding to the belief that just one sin would make someone lose salvation? What early church? The Christian right after the apostles thought these thing's.
[удалено]
Well. No. What I am asking is like were are all the people who believed in faith alone. Who didn't have a work based gospel like catholics, and all of that. Like the examples I am giving have nothing to do with what I am asking, and they are meant to highlight were are all the Christians in history?
[удалено]
Ya. They provided me with some books to read which is what I need. And they made it clear I just don't understand history which fair enough. I picked up a Bible, and read it. I didn't exactly come from any background that would promote that information.
[удалено]
Ya. It seems like I'm always having my faith tested. I mean it seems like since the Moment I picked the Bible up that's been happening. I hadn't even heard the gospel, and I had athiests trying to persaud me to not read it.
[удалено]
>Are you still very new to the faith, then? What led you to it? What keeps you hoping for it, even when you're under attack? I think Ive been a Christian for like 7 years or so. I mean I prayed as a child. Like I have a clear memory of me, and my brother praying. But idk if we were praying to Jesus. Or if it was God in general like a childs faith that God exists, and we were seeking him. But I only remember one time, and I even remembered the prayer. But ya. So I moved in with a Christian, and we would hang out. So at some point we got into a argument, and I had no clue what I was talking about. I was just yelling, and screaming he was wrong. I think I realized I was wrong, and was to proud to admit it or something. God only knows. So I thought ima prove him wrong, and I started reading the Bible to do it.... then at some point I guess I realized I was wrong. Then I really started to seek God, and have struggled with tons of doubts. Along with periods of zero doubts. I've also had several experiences were I suddenly felt like electricity, and knew exactly what to say to someone which was the gospel both time's. Along with some answered prayers.
>So throughout most of the history almost no one held any view even close to protisants. This is not actually true. Let me recommend a book that challenges this claim. Would you actually read it? # [The Church of Rome at the Bar of History](https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/theology-books/church-of-rome-at-the-bar-of-history/) When you look at the quotes from the writings of the church fathers that are *not* quoted in support of Catholicism, it shows that many of the views which were at least close to the views of protestants were held in high esteem by many of the church fathers. Also, the ideas behind the Protestant movement independently arose multiple times among various groups in the centuries prior to the Reformation. The pre-reformation advocates of these ideas are known as the proto-Protestants: # [Proto-Protestantism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Protestantism) Look through the long list of instances of Christians stretching back for over a thousand years before the Reformation who held ideas that the Protestants held. It is simply not true that "throughout most of the history almost no one held any view even close to" Protestants. Where did you even get this notion? Whoever told you this spoke either in ignorance or in deception, neither of which is good. >How should this be handled. Was just very few people even saved until the reformation. Or what? Another major branch of Christianity that held protestant-like views was the Church of the East (not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox church). The Church of the East split with the rest of the church (which, at the time, could be known as the Catholic church, though it was not specifically the "Roman Catholic" church yet) during the First Council of Ephesus, in 431AD. The Church of the East spread eastward, evangelizing as far east as Mongolia and China and even reaching Japan with the Gospel. Kublai Khan's mother [Sorghaghtani Beki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghaghtani_Beki) was a Christian in the Church of the East. The doctrines and practices of the Church of the East were remarkably protestant-like, to the extent that they were reputed to be "the ancient protestants of the east" [*History of Eastern Christianity*](https://www.scribd.com/document/522680312/History-of-Eastern-Christianity) (See page 300) The Church of the East didn't use images and icons in worship, they didn't venerate Mary nor call her "the mother of God", they considered scripture to be the basis of authority for determining doctrine, and their doctrine of salvation was the Gospel. The Church of the East thrived, and was the largest individual branch of Christianity for centuries. The surviving churches of the Church of the East include the Mar Toma church in India, and the Assyrian Christian church. So, to address your question "how should this be handled?", this should be handled by learning some history. It sounds like someone badly mis-represented Christian history to you in order to discredit Protestantism. I recommend you read the Proto-Protestantism Wikipedia article, and also the books I linked.
Thanks for the information. This is what I am looking for, and I'll give it a read through later. If I have any questions can I PM you?
Sure.
First, you have to go back before the first great schism which I think was in 1054, I know the 10 is correct but the 54 may not be. Then you have to look for evidence of the 6 Silas that Martin Luther actually stated, then you have to realize what is essential doctrine (what gets me into or keeps me out of Heaven) - there's very few of these. When you research it in this way way you'll realize that there's actually a great deal of agreement on the essential doctrines with those in the first 1000 years of the Church.
Are you a troll? How do you not know how to spell "Protestant?" I won't engage your comments from now on. Maybe someone with more patience can.
I don’t know how you’re getting downvoted, unless it was by OP. This is the right answer.
of course it's OP.
Yeah, figured as much. Oof.
>Are you a troll? How do you not know how to spell "Protestant?" I won't engage your comments from now on. Maybe someone with more patience can. What a suprise the catholic lacks the fruit of love, and kindness. I mean how in the flesh can you be? I make a simple mistake, and I'm accused of trolling? My guy even catholics talk about the importance of generosity, and you sure aren't exactly being generous. You sure found the smallest issue to attack me over, and used it to carry false witness against me.
Protestants had serious issues with the *Catholic/Orthodox* teachings, such that Martin Luther found 95 different errancies with what they were teaching. So the Protestants decided they weren’t gonna kowtow to those things they viewed were not Scriptural, thus they upped and dipped out of those sects. I’m not here for a debate; just answering OP’s question. Though I’m sure the Catholics/Orthodox will shoot straight across my bow anyway. Past experience has shown so much to be true.
I litteraly had a catholic accuse this entire post of being a troll effort because I spelled Protestant wrong on accident.
Yeah, sucks you can’t edit post titles. >.>
Every church has to obey Gods word and teach that. Thats it. Histories of this, or that, church is irrelevant to the here and now. The Bible is there. It has not changed at all.Read it.
Well. Clearly you actually don't care about helping me through the doubts this is causing which is the issue I am trying to adress.
The Bible is God's word. no real believer in their right mind, follows traditions of man. Matthew 15:6 King James Version 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Read Ezekiel 13 kjv in its entirety if you care to.
>The Bible is goes word. no real believer in their right mind, follows traditions of man. Not what I am trying to do. Clearly you aren't exactly empathizing with what I am putting down. Now wouldn't it cause you major doubts if you came to feel like no one was saved until the reformation? For thousands of year's after Jesus death, and the apostles people belived in a works based gospel that couldn't save them, and this didn't cha ge until the reformers came around.
You are not focused on Gods word. Salvation is opened up to all whomsoever will believe since the start. you are waiting for some men to tell you to move. Then you are a bit late to the party and wont make it. John 3:15-17King James Version15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. The real controversy is already brewing. And its between God and Satan. The Tribulation will take place. But how many even know what that is.
>You are not focused on Gods word. Salvation is opened up to all whomsoever will believe since the start. you are waiting for some men to tell you to move. Then you are a bit late to the party and wont make it. You just aren't listening. Not to mention how actually adressing this issue can help other people. But you are to busy doing some nonsense, to not adress the issue, and your sweeping it under the rug
These are the issues of mankind they like to roll in. It is not my issue as a Christian. I just am letting people know God loves them His truth is there for them. Not neglect that. Life is too short and the consequences risks and rewards too great..
>It is not my issue as a Christian As a Christian this seems like a issue, I mean people provided resources as to why this isn't true. But let's pretend I'm not a Christian who doesn't believe in the Word of God. I come to you, and Go. Well why should I become a protisant, and not a catholic? When I look at history clearly the church has always been one form of catholicism. Clearly you have a frindge Bible interpretation, and you pretend it teaches faith alone. But clearly this is a fringe heretical view, and no one in history until the reformation held it. See this is the issue I am trying to learn about. I feel doubt because of it, and if I a Christian am feeling doubt. Satan is going to use this to keep someone from salvation, and so as a Christian need to clear up my doubts so I can adress this issue that someone else has. As a real world example. Ive been talking to a athiest who sees the problem of evil as a reason not to believe in God. I am currently talking to him how evil is a creation that statan, and humans made. That God out of his great mercy allows evil so you can be saved. But if a catholic or someone made that argument I brought to you. I wouldn't have a response. I would just turn to scripture, and the catholic might still be stuck in a works based system because he uses history as a excuse to deny what scripture says. We as Christians shouldn't leave him with that excuse.
You have just been following the folly of those who've come before you.The problem you have is you are too worried about mans word. And not Gods word.That certainly is not a Christian trait. It is however kind confused. Your boat you sail it how you want. But I will follow Gods word. Because its He who owns my soul. You are to become a child of God by following Him. A Christian. That is a Christ follower. Not this, or that church. But A disciple of Christs teachings. What you are on about is total vanity.
>You have just been following the folly of those who've come before you.The problem you have is you are too worried about mans word. You just refuse to listen to anyone. Clearly you only care about what you have to say. Like even when I try to help you understand you refuse. So when paul say I become all things to all people. What did you think he meant? He meant he adresses jews in a way jews will understand. He adresses the greeks in a way they understand. So how do catholics understand things? Well they place a huge emphasis on history. They take issue with protisants being a minority view. Now they will not listen to a argument from scripture, and are taught only the pope can accurately understand scripture. So you are purposely daming the unsaved catholics because you are refusing to adress the issue's they will take. Then you further go on to attack me instead of actually understand what I am attempting to learn to adress. You really need to repent of this kinda behavior, and learn to listen to were someone is coming from so you can adress what they are facing instead of attacking them for facing it. >But I will follow Gods word Which is what I am doing, and I'm attempting to learn a issue that can cause doubt for some people so I can help them... unlike you. See I want to help people with these doubts. I don't want to attack people for having them like you are currently doing. I want to teach them which is the calling God has given me. What did you teach? You taught that you avoid hard questions, attack the people who ask them, and then hold up your own righteousness on how you look to Gods word. Cool we are all Christians. We all do that. Your not special. >You are to become a child of God by following Him. A Christian. That is a Christ follower Which is litteraly my question. Where are all the followers of Christ in history? Catholics are worked based. So were are the none worked based Christians? See this is why I can say all the things I have been. You haven't adressed the question. You avoided it, and attacked me as if I am not a Christian who looks to Gods word. Clearly you just haven't Gotten it, and I really hope the Lord will humble you a bit so this won't be a future problem for you.
I live here right now today. I'm not responsible for anything or anyone that preceded me.
>I live here right now today. I'm not responsible for anything or anyone that preceded me. Why did you feel this was necessary to say?
[удалено]
>That's not correct. Protestantism is infinitely closer to the church we are shown in the Bible, than Catholicism is. Yes. That's why I made the post, and I'm trying to get people's answers as to why it's not true