The Protestant Reformation: Were its Doctrines Inspired?

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

Yeah....like them Mormons!!! Dang different God believers....



Brighamites???? Huh, and I always thought they were followers of Joe Smith....even though THEY claim to be followers of Christ.......

Thinly veiled slights Erik....not very nice

You’re being awfully sensitive, bytor2112. Protestants and Catholics do worship the same Triune God, and LDS have a different idea—especially when it comes to the 2nd Person of the Trinity: Jesus. If I’ve misstated the facts, please correct me.

Regarding Brigham Young, I’m not sure what you mean by “Brighamites”—but I’m pretty sure from my 7th grade Utah History class that he’s the one who lead the LDS to Utah. So I think what I wrote regarding he and his followers founding Salt Lake City should make complete sense. And he did espouse a number of doctrines, many of which originated with his predecessor and some that were unique to his tenure as LDS prophet.

Not sure how this constitutes a slight in any way. Again, I’m always happy to take correction if I misstate something. I do err from time to time…
;0)

--Erik

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Hey Faded—

Your introduction of Luther’s “Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” on the thread as an alternative to discussing the Five Solas is interesting, but probably not that useful for our purpose. The 95 Theses weren’t intended as stand-alone points of doctrine (which becomes clear as you read through them). And while they address a number of related topics along the way—Luther’s unquestionable intent was to refute the practice selling “indulgences” to mitigate punishment in Purgatory. That, and to let the Pope know he needed to fix the problem posthaste!

The 95 Theses is an example of the initial thoughts of one of the Reformers, Martin Luther. I think it would be fair to say that Martin Luther is probably the most admired Reformer among Latter Day Saints. The 95 Theses are essentially exactly as you characterized them: A beginning point. You're general statement that, "LDS thinking is more in agreement with Catholicism than Protestantism" is incorrect in this case and in many, many other cases. Frankly it is far to broad of a generalization. In these beginning Reformist thoughts, Latter Day Saints can find themselves more in agreement with Luther than not. Of course, that would put our point of view in direct opposition to Catholicsim of Luther's time.

Purgatory is an interesting topic of conversation. We agree that there is more going on than, "Heaven or Hell, Saved or Damned." However, we do not believe in Purgatory in the same sense Catholicism does.

I will repeat what I said before. On the majority of issues where Catholicism and Protestantism disagree, Catholicism is Option A and Protestantism is Option B. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Option C.

Our understanding of proxy work for the dead, Spirit Prison, and a number of other generalities can be pointed to as similarities if you please. If you take a closer look at each case, Catholic doctrine and LDS doctrine are vastly dis-similar to one another on such points. Common ground with Catholicism can be nice as a basis for dialogue, but it is based on extreme generalizations on certain topics.

Luther denouced the existence of Purgatory, and we would not disagree with him in that denunciation. But there is more to it than what Luther and the other Reformers concluded there was.

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.

Erik, I did decide to play ball and offer up some reaction and discussion on the 5 Solas. Did you have any reactions to those thoughts?

[AnthonyB]

Didn't want to interrupt Erik but now the thread seems to be clowing down, I'll put my thoughts in...

I think that the reformation had two wings, and for want of better terms I shall call them "magisterial" and "anabaptist". (The following is only a superficail discussion of a vast topic)

Magestrial reformation was lead largely by ex-priest or scholars (eg Calvin Luther Zwingle Knox). They tended to state churches, infant baptism, hierichial church government, reformed theology and were happy to use the state to enforce relgious orhtodoxy.

Anabaptist wing was more lay in orientation. They tended to non state churches, congreagational church government, believer's baptism, (anachronistically although the term is) arminian or even semi-pelaginian thelogy and believed the state should not enforce religion.

Of course they was a spectrum and not everbody fits into neatly into such category.

However it always struck me as odd that most "evanglelicals" remember and reverence magisterial protestant leaders, even though on whole range of issue we differ from them. To be brutally honest these same revered leaders quite often had the state sanction execution or at least persecution of people who largely share beliefs common with evanglelicals. Yet the leaders of the anabaptist wing fail to be known, yet alone reverenced. (with the exception of perhaps Bunyan but his stints in prison show how even mild evanglelical types were treated by magisterial reformed christians). Far fewer evanglelicals know about Menno Simmons (as an example) but it was the Mennonites that had considerable influence on the creation of the English Baptists.

It strikes as only a little less absurd for LDS to think kindly of the magisterial reformers then it does for many evanglelicals. Both Baptist/Pentecostal/Church of Christ/SDA and the LDS would have all quite happy been severally persucted by these men (and sometimes even executed) for nothing more then choosing to believe differently.

[Faded]

Excellent points Anthony. I think it is a travesty to bypass the Anabaptists when talking about the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, their history gets muddied by "less radical" Protestants and Catholics alike. I think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has a lot in common with the Anabaptists in one important aspect: Their enemies went to such great lengths to demonize them that it is almost impossible to have a clear picture of their history.

Noteworthy Characteristics of Anabaptists:
1.) Believer's Baptism - Baptism is to be administered to believers only. In other words, no infant baptism and baptism was only to occur at the point where the individual chooses to commit their life to Christ.
2.) Symbolism of Holy Communion - Communion is a memorial of the death of Christ, and transubstantiation does not occur.
3.) Restricted Communion - The bread and wine should be broken with baptized believers only.
4.) Religious Separation - Christians should be separated from the world. Some groups like the Mennoites and Ammish took this to the extreme of complete separation from society. Most Anabaptists of the 16th century did not practice separation in that fashion.
5.) Separation of church and state - Christians should not make an oath or hold the office of magistrate. Government and religion should be independant of one another.
7.) Pacifism - Christians should not exercise self-defense or go to war.

It was primarily item 1 and item 5 that were extremely unpopular with every other Christian religion at the time. In the mold of Catholicism, all of your more "moderate" reformation movements viewed State control of religion to be essential. The idea of separating Church and State was utterly preposterous. Additionally, "re-baptism" practiced by Anabaptists was considered extremely controversial at the time. More than one kingdom in Europe pronounced the sentence of death for the practice. Considering the era, rebaptism would have been the only possible way for believer baptism to occur since pretty much everyone had been baptized as an infant, but they went a step further by declaring all Catholic baptism to be invalid (because it did not hold the prerequisite of an individual dedicating their life to Christ at their baptism.)

I do find it completely fascinating how the world has changed as it relates to the Anabaptists and their views. We would hardly consider them the insane radicals that Europeans of the 16th century characterized them to be.

Protestantism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theology of Anabaptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An interesting chart of the Protestant Reformation (only specifically references the largest movements of course.)

[ErikJohnson]

I wouldn’t dispute your overall point, AnthonyB, but I feel obliged to nitpick just a little (because I’m a huge fan of John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress). Strictly speaking, it isn’t accurate to say, as you wrote—

with the exception of perhaps Bunyan but his stints in prison show how even mild evangelical types were treated by magisterial reformed Christians

First, Bunyan lived a full century after the “Magisterial” Reformers you mentioned. Second, he was persecuted, not by Reformed Christians (he actually was one, and you’ll find Pilgrim’s Progress very much affirms Reformed theology)—but by the largely Arminian leadership of the Church of England in concert with the government of Charles II. So in this particular example—you really have it backwards.

The Arminian faction became ascendant in the Church of England during the reign of Charles 1, and by many accounts was a contributing factor to the English Civil War, leading to the temporary overthrow of the monarchy by Oliver Cromwell (who was Reformed). Bunyan supported Cromwell, and after Cromwell died and the monarchy was reestablished under Charles’s son, Charles II, Parliament passed the “Clarendon Code” and other laws reestablishing the Church of England’s authority. It was under those laws that Bunyan was prosecuted and imprisoned—the environment in which he wrote Pilgrim’s Progress and other works.

But again, I think your overall point is a fair one. Had Joseph Smith lived in the 16th Century and traveled about denying the Trinity and recruiting followers—as he was able to do with relative freedom in 19th century America—he would have gone the way of Servetus, per your post on the previous thread. But 19th century America had new values that were sacrosanct, worth killing and dying for—enshrined in a “Bill of Rights.” You could deny the Trinity in 19th Century America and live to tell the tale—but use your position to destroy a privately owned printing press…

--Erik

[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]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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.

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Faded

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.

Originally Posted by Faded

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).

Originally Posted by Faded

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]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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 ...