What has happened to the doctrines of the protestant reformation?

[Depleted]

He came out of the shoot with plenty of false assumptions about us. I have had plenty of discussions reflective of the Reformation here on CC. I will even express some of them when deemed necessary.

Hmm, must miss those discussions because all I ever see is "what's wrong with youse" when they can't even get what we believe straight before telling us we're wrong.

From there it goes
"No, that's not what we believe. It's more..."

"Nah-anyh, it's what I said."

Repeat, until I realize they made up their minds and reality won't change their beliefs.

 

[Depleted]

Yes, that's me. A vague retort is necessary when in a hurry but still want to make a point.
How 'bout you? You still hanging out the dirty laundry of others?

Matter of fact, still have to do hubby's laundry. lol

 

[Magenta]

No, he's not. There is logic to what he's saying, but you just leaped into "he's got to be wrong" simply because you have yet to understand what he's saying.

No, actually he is wrong because he was broad brushing the church in a way that is not applicable to all despite his stated belief that the problem is universal. I understood what he is saying just fine. If he wants to talk about specific problems with specific churches he should name those churches and the problems, not say every church is wrong and there is a problem as if he has been to every church and knows what is being taught in each one. Saying doctrines of certain men are not being taught is a cop out. I don't go to church to be taught about the reformers. If I wanted to know about them I would read up on them in my spare time or take a course. Saying Protestant churches are getting more like the Roman Catholic church is a laugh. Some of them never moved far from Catholicism in the first place.

 

[Willie-T]

I wouldn't know. I have no idea what "The Frozen Chosen" means past the obvious snub of a some denomination.

Think about it as if comparing us to the way the Jews saw themselves when Jesus arrived on the scene. "We've worked hard to get it right, and By God, we are NOT going to alter a speck of it."

 

[Depleted]

Perhaps too many of us have gotten used to explaining things by repeating "terms" instead of using the words the terms are supposed to stand for.

20 years of being Wesleyan/Arminian/whatever-word-isn't-offensive-to-my-brothers-in-Christ-who-aren't-reformed before becoming reformed really taught me how to explain the hoity-toity language of reformed into plain English. I do. Still seems like everyone thinks I'm speaking Inuit.

 

[Depleted]

Who knows? But if he is the same troll, he has still raised a fairly valid point, no matter what his intent or agenda, I think we can evaluate what is on the plate, and have a good conversation about it.

 

[Depleted]

Sure, the Lutherans for example are all over the board. ELCA in particular have departed more than most from their distinctives...the Book of Concord. LCMS still has some semblance to it.
Presbyterians, Baptists, etc., still same story...slide, slide, slide.

Meh. I think of it as more split, split, split. Some of us refuse to slide when it comes to doctrine, so we have to spit. But, man! It's embarrassing how often we keep splitting!

 

[Depleted]

no worry, I've heard their (Reformed) group prayers...a sermon in itself.

Yeah! You got problems if you come in and your leg already hurts. lol

 

[Willie-T]

Meh. I think of it as more split, split, split. Some of us refuse to slide when it comes to doctrine, so we have to spit. But, man! It's embarrassing how often we keep splitting!

Just so I know...... is "slide" a good thing, or a bad thing? I see what Jesus did, in many instances, to be considered "sliding" by His detractors. (Woman in adultery... eating or doing a "work" on the Sabbath, etc)

 

[calvinsx76]

Matter of fact, still have to do hubby's laundry. lol

Thank you Lynn for your kind words.

 

[Depleted]

No, actually he is wrong because he was broad brushing the church in a way that is not applicable to all despite his stated belief that the problem is universal. I understood what he is saying just fine. If he wants to talk about specific problems with specific churches he should name those churches and the problems, not say every church is wrong and there is a problem as if he has been to every church and knows what is being taught in each one. Saying doctrines of certain men are not being taught is a cop out. I don't go to church to be taught about the reformers. If I wanted to know about them I would read up on them in my spare time or take a course. Saying Protestant churches are getting more like the Roman Catholic church is a laugh. Some of them never moved far from Catholicism in the first place.

Agreed, he started with both barrels before finding out who he was talking to, but this is where it went from there:

first I would say that the core teachings of protestant churches are no longer taught in the congregations. the teachings of justification, election, original sin, the commandments are not a primary focus. the works of the magisterial reformers are not being used in the congregations.

Sounds like you object to the gospel being taught/exposited. You are looking for history lessons.

His objections:
1. No longer taught (history lessons)
2. Justification. (Not history lesson.)
3. Election. (Not history lesson.)
4. Original sin. (So-so on history lesson and not history lesson.)
5. Ten commandments. (Sort of like original sin in historic significance and yet goes beyond that.)
6. Magisterial Reformers (Combination of old era in history along with what I was explaining about how teachers really are trained to work in a church, so a bit of both too.)

But you cut all six points down to he just wanted history to be taught. Not true. That's kind of like saying studying how the church came into agreement that the trinity was God is just a history lesson. Considering there was a time in church history that no one conceived of the trinity of God, i is a history lesson, but it has become so much a part of true doctrine that it is much more than that.

You got turned off by his lock-and-load OP. I get that. Much of what he says disturbs/annoys me too. BUT much of what he says is also right. And we really don't have to name every single church to determine if the modern church is or isn't falling away. We see it falling away, so why do we have to give an exact list?

Doesn't saying where the slippery slope starts cover it? Why be defensive unless your church makes you nervous? We already know he generalizes to the point of being ineffective, but does that mean we cannot discuss where it is true?

You say you don't need any history lessons? I bet you can't prove the Trinity without the history lessons. The only reason we know the Trinity so easily today is because devoted men of God argued that one out until they agreed! And then they taught it.

Without the history lessons, sometimes we lose doctrines that truly matter. And that often is where the slippery slope starts, it's just no one notices the slipping until things like marrying same-sex couples suddenly becomes okay! If we know something of the history, we know where the slippery part starts.

 

[calvinsx76]

No, actually he is wrong because he was broad brushing the church in a way that is not applicable to all despite his stated belief that the problem is universal. I understood what he is saying just fine. If he wants to talk about specific problems with specific churches he should name those churches and the problems, not say every church is wrong and there is a problem as if he has been to every church and knows what is being taught in each one. Saying doctrines of certain men are not being taught is a cop out. I don't go to church to be taught about the reformers. If I wanted to know about them I would read up on them in my spare time or take a course. Saying Protestant churches are getting more like the Roman Catholic church is a laugh. Some of them never moved far from Catholicism in the first place.

Thanks all for your comments but I think I need to clarify a few points.

First, the discussion thread is discussing the historical position of the protestant faith. Now I reference "Protestant faith" as being the official position of the indendant churches of Europe as declared in the multiple confessions that are historically documented during that period.

Now I do understand that there are several members on this thread that are not members of these historical churches. Based on some of comments, the confusion is being influenced by a lack of understanding the historical period and churches.


Since the Magisterial reformation, there has been many movements which has shifted the tide in terms of belief, practices and interpretation which in our current modern society we are all prey to in terms of understanding.

There was the civil war in England which led to the division of the church of England, which spawned out the various ideas and led to the organization of the various denominations.

We had the age of reason, the enlightenment movement, the second great awakening, the restoration period, amount many others in the 1900s.

So when I am painting the modern church with a broad stroke, it is for good reason. First, our independant, non denominational/bible believing churches only of the 20th century, did not exist during that period, and in essence, really only spawned out during the second great awakening and have only really began to take root over the last 100 years.

So I can understand why it is difficult for members of these churches to grasp the historical context of the period of time during the reign of the apostles and 1900 later when they came into existence. This is not to attack those independent churches, but to bring to light, that one must understand that we are all pre-disposed to influences from the movements we came out of.

I say this because, these influences typically guide how we interpret the bible.

 

[calvinsx76]

Agreed, he started with both barrels before finding out who he was talking to, but this is where it went from there:


His objections:
1. No longer taught (history lessons)
2. Justification. (Not history lesson.)
3. Election. (Not history lesson.)
4. Original sin. (So-so on history lesson and not history lesson.)
5. Ten commandments. (Sort of like original sin in historic significance and yet goes beyond that.)
6. Magisterial Reformers (Combination of old era in history along with what I was explaining about how teachers really are trained to work in a church, so a bit of both too.)

But you cut all six points down to he just wanted history to be taught. Not true. That's kind of like saying studying how the church came into agreement that the trinity was God is just a history lesson. Considering there was a time in church history that no one conceived of the trinity of God, i is a history lesson, but it has become so much a part of true doctrine that it is much more than that.

You got turned off by his lock-and-load OP. I get that. Much of what he says disturbs/annoys me too. BUT much of what he says is also right. And we really don't have to name every single church to determine if the modern church is or isn't falling away. We see it falling away, so why do we have to give an exact list?

Doesn't saying where the slippery slope starts cover it? Why be defensive unless your church makes you nervous? We already know he generalizes to the point of being ineffective, but does that mean we cannot discuss where it is true?

You say you don't need any history lessons? I bet you can't prove the Trinity without the history lessons. The only reason we know the Trinity so easily today is because devoted men of God argued that one out until they agreed! And then they taught it.

Without the history lessons, sometimes we lose doctrines that truly matter. And that often is where the slippery slope starts, it's just no one notices the slipping until things like marrying same-sex couples suddenly becomes okay! If we know something of the history, we know where the slippery part starts.

I really appreciate your comments Lynn, and I apologize if I was too general in my approach, but it was my first day and had to gauge my audience. Plus, I am writing through my phone, which makes it very difficult to communicate effectively, not to mention use proper grammar and spelling.

 

[Depleted]

Think about it as if comparing us to the way the Jews saw themselves when Jesus arrived on the scene. "We've worked hard to get it right, and By God, we are NOT going to alter a speck of it."

We work hard enough to get it right that we're still arguing over deaconess, tongues, and did God plan Jesus to die before or after starting the universe? We work hard on getting it right, until we get it right. Most of the rest of the time, we argue because we don't know for certain if we got it right. The arguing is "we ain't right yet." lol

(Ha! Maybe that explains why I belong in this denomination We're all obsessive. lol)

 

[Depleted]

Just so I know...... is "slide" a good thing, or a bad thing? I see what Jesus did, in many instances, to be considered "sliding" by His detractors. (Woman in adultery... eating or doing a "work" on the Sabbath, etc)

Jesus didn't slide. All he did was make the folks decide which one didn't sin to prepare properly who got that stone to throw. (There was preparation needed before stone throwing, but in their haste to find someone who sinned in a way they did not, they forgot that part.) And healing on the Sabbath isn't breaking The Law. It was breaking the new-and-improved-jewish-construct posing as the Law.

If Jesus slid, he sinned. If he sinned, that cross was wasted pain and energy.

 

[Depleted]

Thank you Lynn for your kind words.

Sorry, but I'm not doing your laundry too. lol

 

[Depleted]

Thanks all for your comments but I think I need to clarify a few points.

First, the discussion thread is discussing the historical position of the protestant faith. Now I reference "Protestant faith" as being the official position of the indendant churches of Europe as declared in the multiple confessions that are historically documented during that period.

Now I do understand that there are several members on this thread that are not members of these historical churches. Based on some of comments, the confusion is being influenced by a lack of understanding the historical period and churches.


Since the Magisterial reformation, there has been many movements which has shifted the tide in terms of belief, practices and interpretation which in our current modern society we are all prey to in terms of understanding.

There was the civil war in England which led to the division of the church of England, which spawned out the various ideas and led to the organization of the various denominations.

We had the age of reason, the enlightenment movement, the second great awakening, the restoration period, amount many others in the 1900s.

So when I am painting the modern church with a broad stroke, it is for good reason. First, our independant, non denominational/bible believing churches only of the 20th century, did not exist during that period, and in essence, really only spawned out during the second great awakening and have only really began to take root over the last 100 years.

So I can understand why it is difficult for members of these churches to grasp the historical context of the period of time during the reign of the apostles and 1900 later when they came into existence. This is not to attack those independent churches, but to bring to light, that one must understand that we are all pre-disposed to influences from the movements we came out of.

I say this because, these influences typically guide how we interpret the bible.

So? American to American, why are you caught up with the European historic parts? We crossed an ocean to get away from that version, so why pick it up from back then, when we are the descendents of those who had to leave.

12 colonies just to avoid the persecution of churches back in the old country. We went "independent" 240 years ago, and with good reason!

 

[calvinsx76]

So? American to American, why are you caught up with the European historic parts? We crossed an ocean to get away from that version, so why pick it up from back then, when we are the descendents of those who had to leave.

12 colonies just to avoid the persecution of churches back in the old country. We went "independent" 240 years ago, and with good reason!

Well, I am particularly fond of the first 300 years of Christianity over the current period in discussion, but that's another thread. My father was a member of the Anglican Communion, and my mother was Jewish, so you can say, I have had quite the upbringing, not to mention, my weekends were full of synagogue and a typical Anglican setting.

I have always been interested in studying the histories ideas, especially in the realm of philosophical/theological development and thought.

The prosecution was by the hands of the Roman catholic church. When it's head reared itself back into the Church of England, it was time to move. Remember, the debate of the 1500 really is re-debating the discussion between Augustine and Palgius.

And today, we are still having that same discussion, but other devices are moving in.

Remember, true atheism, didn't develop until the age of reason, prior to that, everyone has an understand of an overall diety, even the historical atheists, who didn't believe in the Gods of their city. So the historical church is very relevant.

 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

though I haven't attended all modern churches, the predominant view amoung modern writers, evangelical leaders like Joel orsteen, max lucado, John hagen and others don't represent the historical protestant faith. their theology is more Roman catholic than protestant.

I'd argue that with some of the people you put in that list, you jump from one end of the spectrum with Roman Catholic doctrine, to the other end of the spectrum. Granted, I do not include Roman Catholicism into any branches of Christianity, but people who leave the clutches of Roman Catholicism oftentimes jump to the other end of the spectrum and fall into something that is equally wrong.

Most of the people you mention are very far removed from Roman Catholic teachings which are heretical. It's hard to take your point seriously here. Perhaps you'd like to revise your statement?

 

[crossnote]

Thank you Lynn for your kind words.

Yes, I was feeling a little starched around the neck about that time.