Reformation historians - questions

[CrimsonFlames]

Hello, who here is able to name some of the groups which were underground that agitated for the reformation?

The point I am trying to make is that there were always true christians who didnt follow the vatican., is anyone able to name those groups please

 

[SantoSubito]

Hello, who here is able to name some of the groups which were underground that agitated for the reformation?

The point I am trying to make is that there were always true christians who didnt follow the vatican., is anyone able to name those groups please

Your going to run into some trouble there. Outside of some "trail of blood" theory such groups didn't exist. That is of course if we accept your insinuation that those of us who follow il Papa aren't true Christians.

 

[approaching_armageddon]

The Waldensians were a group that agitated for the Reformation. Also, within the Catholic Church there were Christians who challenged the authority of the pope and many of the RCC's worst teachings (such as transubstantiation, the veneration of images, etc.). Some of them were outspoken and persecuted for their faith, while others sort of kept to themselves and pushed for Reform from within. If you go back a bit earlier, it is easier to find real Christians--even though they may not have had some sort of identifiable "church" other than the Roman Catholic Church. For example, in the 8th-10th Centuries (if I recall correctly) and before, iconoclasts were throughout the church. Protestantism brought about the revival of iconoclasm, and for good reason--the second commandment. And so on.

That said, I should add that we don't want to be naive, here. Protestants historically embraced the view that Christian theology (and official church teaching) progressed through time. So, for instance, as controversies became urgent, the church has to clarify Scripture's teaching in order to divide false teachers from the true. So, our Christology was developed in response to the teachings of heretics, and many true Christians in the early church wouldn't have had as sophisticated and subtle of a Christology as we do today. After all, they weren't aware of how the Christological controversies were resolved. Similarly, the Protestant Reformation brought clarity that didn't exist before the Reformation. Accordingly, although true Christians had always been saved by faith alone, not all of these Christians could have clearly articulated the doctrines of sola fide and/or sola scriptura. This isn't a big deal. In fact, that's what Protestants should expect given their commitment to the historical progress of theology. So don't have too high of expectations for our brethren who lived before the Reformation era controversies. Their beliefs will often be vague and/or confused on the points in question. That's to be expected. (Frankly, Catholics have to do the same thing...the early church simply didn't hold the exact same view of the Bishop of Rome as Catholics do today.)

--Dan

 

[SantoSubito]

The Waldensians were a group that agitated for the Reformation. Also, within the Catholic Church there were Christians who challenged the authority of the pope and many of the RCC's worst teachings (such as transubstantiation, the veneration of images, etc.). Some of them were outspoken and persecuted for their faith, while others sort of kept to themselves and pushed for Reform from within. If you go back a bit earlier, it is easier to find real Christians--even though they may not have had some sort of identifiable "church" other than the Roman Catholic Church. For example, in the 8th-10th Centuries (if I recall correctly) and before, iconoclasts were throughout the church. Protestantism brought about the revival of iconoclasm, and for good reason--the second commandment. And so on.

The Waldensians are a bad example to use, since until they threw their lot in with the Reformation they held basically the same core beliefs that the Catholic Church does. However, they were excommunicated because they held contempt for ecclesiastical authority. However you are right about Iconoclasts existing before, but Iconoclasm was soundly declared a heresy by a council of all the Christian bishops, both East and West, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

That said, I should add that we don't want to be naive, here. Protestants historically embraced the view that Christian theology (and official church teaching) progressed through time. So, for instance, as controversies became urgent, the church has to clarify Scripture's teaching in order to divide false teachers from the true. So, our Christology was developed in response to the teachings of heretics, and many true Christians in the early church wouldn't have had as sophisticated and subtle of a Christology as we do today. After all, they weren't aware of how the Christological controversies were resolved. Similarly, the Protestant Reformation brought clarity that didn't exist before the Reformation. Accordingly, although true Christians had always been saved by faith alone, not all of these Christians could have clearly articulated the doctrines of sola fide and/or sola scriptura. This isn't a big deal. In fact, that's what Protestants should expect given their commitment to the historical progress of theology. So don't have too high of expectations for our brethren who lived before the Reformation era controversies. Their beliefs will often be vague and/or confused on the points in question. That's to be expected. (Frankly, Catholics have to do the same thing...the early church simply didn't hold the exact same view of the Bishop of Rome as Catholics do today.)

--Dan

We do both agree that theology has progressed and been further defined in response to heresies through out the ages, but I wouldn't call the views of the ECF's vague on the points in question. They had a very sophisticated theology, almost all of which has been carried over into Catholic doctrine.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Your going to run into some trouble there. Outside of some "trail of blood" theory such groups didn't exist. That is of course if we accept your insinuation that those of us who follow il Papa aren't true Christians.

Dear SantoSubito. That's not the only thing that causes trouble.

There are some Christians who insinuate we aren't true Christians

if we follow neither the Pope of Rome nor the Protestant Reformers.

They act as if the only possible Christian choices are "Catholicism"

or "Lutheranism" (or Protestantism in any form, ...). They ignore

or fail to understand the Eastern Church. In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[SantoSubito]

Dear SantoSubito. That's not the only thing that causes trouble.

There are some Christians who insinuate we aren't true Christians

if we follow neither the Pope of Rome nor the Protestant Reformers.

They act as if the only possible Christian choices are "Catholicism"

or "Lutheranism" (or Protestantism in any form, ...). They ignore

or fail to understand the Eastern Church. In Erie Scott Harrington

In a way Scott that is a blessing. So many people have so many pre-conceived notions, misinformation, and sometimes straight up lies that have been told to them throughout the ages about Catholicism. Which makes it really hard to get across what you really believe, because there will always be someone to say "no they believe this" as if they know what Catholics believe better than Catholics do.

Basically the EO are somewhat lucky in America because they pretty much get to start with a clean slate, without any historical animosity weighing them down.

But on the bright-side both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have been on an up-tick percentage of population wise for a while now, and it shows no sign of stopping anytime soon. Evangelicals especially are starting to look into the Church Fathers, and they're realizing that the Early Church was not like what they had always been told it was.

What I find especially interesting is that it's rare to find a well-Catechized Catholic convert to Evangelicalism, but every single Evangelical convert to Catholicism I've ever met has been (I help out in RCIA so I meet all the converts every year) has been a dedicated and intelligent Christian. The reason why they converted is almost always the same; in Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy as well) there is a intellectual and historical depth that was lacking in Protestantism. Unity is another thing they found attractive.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Crimson, I suggest reading more into Reformation theology on this matter. Reformed churces utlize the records we have concerning the Early Church. A good place to start concerning this is James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.



</title> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing the Gospel of God' <--- click
Quoting the Early Church Fathers <--- click

Most Protestant groups have no idea that we have any information pertaining to the EC and ECF, and often ignore them entirely.

 

[CrimsonFlames]

Crimson, I suggest reading more into Reformation theology on this matter. Reformed churces utlize the records we have concerning the Early Church. A good place to start concerning this is James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.



</title> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing the Gospel of God' <--- click
Quoting the Early Church Fathers <--- click

Most Protestant groups have no idea that we have any information pertaining to the EC and ECF, and often ignore them entirely.

Thanks Jimmy., will look into it

I watched a documentary once which highlighted groups who were always resistant to the claimed authority of the Vatican. However its one of those documentaries that seems to be getting railroaded from public viewing