See post 144. You would not call this individual a Protestant? They simply fall into the category of “third thing?” Are people who believe those things (being born again, etc.) outside Protestantism?
I am not digressing to discussing other people. How about this. If you want to talk about whether something someone is saying is historically Protestant, look it up in a historically Protestant confession (
Westminster, London Baptist, Canons of Dort, Augsburg, etc.). Then you'll know, and you won't have to rely on my opinion. Then we could discuss this objectively, rather than getting lost in the quagmire of personal opinion.
Therein lies the problem with the revolt as Luther pointed to in his Letter to the ‘Christians’ of Antwerp and my point.
I have already refuted your misuse of Luther. He attributes divergence from Scriptural truth to demonic activity, NOT Sola Scriptura, and indeed, even now, the most notable examples of so-called problematic "Protestants" are based on a
rejection of Sola Scriptura in favor of mystical experiences pretending to reveal new truth (Oneness Pentecostalism, for example, Jim Jones for another. Jim Jones was telling his people to use their Bibles for toilet paper. Etc.). So your analysis suffers from an oversimplification that consistently yields misinformation. You can correct it by referring yourself to objective confessional standards. But that's entirely up to you.
Luther and his followers opened the door for this mess. Every man believing he can interpret the Bible for himself.
No, Luther and many who came before and many who came after broke the monopoly of a corrupted magisterium. It is a gross oversimplification to analyze the Reformation in terms of one man. Was he Superman, able to cow entire nations with superpowers? Or were there enough people who had been subjugated to the tyranny of Rome long enough, and were ready to breath free air once again? The Reformation had been underway for a long time. Luther just help topple an already brittle structure. If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else.
As for whether every man can interpret Scripture for himself, it isn't a question of "can" but "must." Other than the comatose, no one who looks at any printed text can avoid the interpretive process. You see symbols, you render them into some sort of meaning, and presto you too are an interpreter. It cannot be avoided. The real problem is epistemology. How does one know one's interpretation is right? This is already a long response, and I'm sure you know that standard back and forth on that, so I will defer that for later. My main point here is that Luther didn't do anything but concede to reality. That can be awkward when the "emperor" thinks he is clothed, but really isn't. Don't shoot the messenger.
If so, your ‘Church’ has the same problem that the Catholic Church had/has, combating heresy. For if they are outside the approved five Sola’s you mention, what else would you call it? Aren’t those ‘Sola’s’ your dogmas and deposit of the faith that you hold? If so, again, your religion has the same problem the Catholic Church has, yours has set itself up as the proper way to worship God. The difference, as I see it, your religion simply cut out the priesthood and the Ecclesia and have what? No teaching authority.
If they are outside the Five Solas they have abandoned Scripture. But again, your statement reflects the heavy tilt toward the genetic fallacy I mentioned earlier. Define us by the content of our confession, not by the color of our buildings, or whatever. Groups that no longer accept the Five Solas, at a minimum, cannot be considered historically Protestant. Just like old Israel thought they could be considered sons of Abraham, just because they had the right lineage, some think that lineage defines the whole problem. But what did John the Baptist tell those purported "sons of Abraham?"
Matthew 3:9-11 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (10) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (11) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
The axe is laid unto the root. What? Has John no respect for those who sit in the seat of Moses? Apparently John thought the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the producing of present fruit, much more important than some weak genetic connection to past men of God. If the tree bears no fruit, God Himself cuts it down. Not Martin Luther.
As for teaching authority, we have teachers, and we respect them. Paul said there would be some gifted by the Holy Spirit for just that task. There is a great deal of unity among the confessionally reformed/Protestant/Evangelical on all the major issues staked out in the early reformed confessions. The difference is we, as the Ecclesia, retain the right and the duty to discern truth from error. When a false teacher enters our midst, we have an immune response. We hold them accountable to Scripture. We are obligated to do our fair share of the work.
So how then can it be said that these folks are this ‘third thing’ you speak of? All of them spring from the same reformation ideas, attributed to the reformation.
No, they don't. You are engaging in a causal fallacy. Those who no longer hold Reformation ideas got there by rejecting those Reformation ideas. This is really pretty simple. Luther was right. Divergence from Scripture is a spiritual attack. It happens in the Ecclesia because that's where the tender sheep are, and that's where the wolves love to go. In fact, if I were you, and I really wanted to know where the sheep were, I'd watch where the wolves went sniffing. They're pretty good at finding sheep.
So again, your genetic fallacy is showing. You need to make a compelling case that the diversity of ideas you castigate are in fact associated with those who still hold to the Five Solas. I don't think you can do that, so I won't be holding my breath.
I would wager if that ‘third’ group was asked they would indicate that they are all part of reformation theology.
LOL! You must not get out much. I'll see your wager and go double against it. I was raised in the Baptist tradition, and the independent/fundamentalists absolutely reject the Protestant moniker. There is a long tradition among them of having an entirely independent line of descent from apostolic times, incorporating a number of groups that were expelled and persecuted by Rome, including the Waldensians. Yes, I am aware the history of the Waldensians is a bone of contention among ecclesiastical historians, and I haven't made my mind up yet how to view that. But you are the one placing the wager, and I guarantee you there are pretty big chunks of what you would call Protestantism who, if asked for themselves, would reject the label. So if this were a real wager (which it is not), I'd be already planning how to spend my winnings, no offense. :)
But this really gets back to one thing. For RCs here, the genetic fallacy is very hard to let go of. It has become a fixture in the polemic, as false as it is, and it is a source of constant miscommunication. You know what it reminds me of? When an American visits the middle east (as I have), and sees all those dark-skinned men and women running around, and cannot tell the difference between an Arab and a Jew, and thinks they are all the same, when they are so completely different. Asia is another place where that happens. We get good at distinguishing ourselves from the "other," but not so good at seeing differences outside our own "tribe." It's human nature. I understand how that sort of thing happens. But it tends to be a real conversation killer when the objective is getting at divine truth.
Peace,
SR
I picked up a book off my shelf that I haven’t read in a long time, ‘How the Reformation happened’ by Hilaire Belloc. In the opening introduction he said something that brought a smile to my face.
Essentially he said that to most Catholics, a Protestant is a Protestant is a Protestant.
So, I have learned a few things. While I do not agree with you, or the others here, (and I’m sure you will say the feeling is mutual) I thank you for your responses and the information that you supplied.
Although I do have a friend who is studying to be a Protestant Minister and we have talked at length, I see it has not even scratched the surface. I will endeavor to learn more about these matters.
Lastly, I admit having some misinformation yet there is some misinformation from the other side of the fence as well.
Is it all worth it? Yes, I believe it is and I believe you do as well.
So, Thank you again.
No, Luther and many who came before and many who came after broke the monopoly of a corrupted magisterium. It is a gross oversimplification to analyze the Reformation in terms of one man. Was he Superman, able to cow entire nations with superpowers? Or were there enough people who had been subjugated to the tyranny of Rome long enough, and were ready to breath free air once again? The Reformation had been underway for a long time. Luther just help topple an already brittle structure. If it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else.The same can be said about any antisemite who hated the Jews and played an active role in their destruction. It prima facie proves he was not inspired by the LORD God of Israel.
Such a one is the foundation of faith groups named after him, and perhaps the bulk of the reformation also views him as foundational in what became a new series of religious communities, formed by the Gentiles who rebelled against the established, historical, and visible Catholic Church.
Another proof of the lack of divine inspiration for the reformation is the disunity amongst themselves they showed from the beginning, which has continued to this day.
It is true those principal reformation faith groups retained some of the truth they had inherited, on a sliding scale, and it was sufficient for those who actually obeyed the commandments of the Messiah.