The Protestant Reformation: Were its Doctrines Inspired?

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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.

I don't know if you're fully appreciating the logical contradiction you just expressed here. Essentially, you are saying, "I not really disagreeing with you on the Trinity, just on how you define God and Jesus Christ." Erik, how do you personally define God and Christ? With the doctrine of the Trinity, that's how. You have raised the point, right along with many other Christians, that "Mormons do not believe in the true Jesus. They believe in a different Jesus." What is the basis for this statement? What is the underlying problem you have with our understand for Jesus Christ? The Trinity. It's all built into the Trinity.

Comparing our faith in Jesus Christ to that of Islam is preposterous and I do wish you would stop trying to make that point. It's insulting. Jesus Christ is God. He is my Lord and My God. He created everything and I believe he is the only way for me to find salvation from my sins. He is everything to me. Without him, life would be miserable and meaningless. No member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is going to say any less. Islam considers him to be nothing more than another prophet. So while I admire the faith of Muslims around the world, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that my understanding of Jesus Christ is anything similar to theirs. It isn't even close.

Both of us can agree on the statement, "Jesus Christ is God." We just mean different things by it. You're welcome to disagree with our viewpoint, but you have not done nearly enough to demonstrate that the quaint notion of "Sola Scriptura" is not being contradicted by an absolutist acceptance of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. In short, accept the Trinity and never, ever question it no matter what. If the Bible is the sole source to find and to measure all truth, then the Trinity could not possibly be an absolute.

You've made some very nice sounding statements about the unity Christianity and how they all live happily together with only slight differences of opinion. I think that is a very naive characterization of the Protestant Reformation. I would contend that the 30 Years War was the crowning event allowing for the permanent survival of the Protestants. Protestants and Catholics pummelled each other in this and many other cases, until they eventually made an uneasy truce. Why? Because the entire continent of Europe was completely exhausted and nobody was really winning. So much death and destruction with nothing much accomplished by it. Conflict and violence didn't ever completely end, but it has diminished slowly over the centuries. It has taken centuries for Catholicsm and Protestantism to place nice together. To characterize them as good buddies and long-time friends seems like a tremendous distortion of reality.

What I see in the Protestant Reformation in general: The Reformers stopped short of what they logically should have done -- denounce the Catholic Church. If they disagree with their Mother Church on a long list of things, then why sit on the fence? Because of what it would mean. The Catholic Church was the only Church for a long period of time. To call them wrong is to imply that they are not God's Church and Kingdom on Earth. If they are not God's Church and Kingdom on Earth then there must have been a falling away at some point in time. So to acknowledge the logical conclusion they had already begun -- that the Catholic Church is not God's True Church -- would be to admit that God's True Church and Kingdom was not to be found anywhere on Earth anymore. The implications of that were too much, so Protestantism stopped short of calling the Catholic Church false. They must have felt they had no choice. But there's the real dilemna. If the Catholic Church perpetuated a long list of false doctrines that were offensive to God as the Reformers claimed it did, how can it be God's True Church and Kingdom?

End result, the Protestant Reformation and the religions that sprang from it continue to sit on the fence. To them, the Catholic Church is not right and it's not wrong. It's both and neither.

[ErikJohnson]

Seriously, Faded—how do you expect me to respond and defend things I neither wrote nor implied? After making real progress—we’re right back at post #15.

I didn’t say, essentially or otherwise, "I'm not really disagreeing with you on the Trinity, just on how you define God and Jesus Christ." You and I obviously do disagree over the Trinity. I didn’t say the various denominations within the Christian Church—“all live happily together with only slight differences of opinion.” I don’t agree their differences are slight. And I didn’t characterize them as “good buddies and long-time friends.” I agree such a characterization would be a distortion.

Sometimes I get the impression you don’t really want to engage me, Faded. Instead, you’d prefer to engage a caricature of me that you’ve created in your head. And the funny thing is—I dislike the caricature at least as much as you. He makes spectacularly bad arguments and is evidently thick as a brick. The most we can say is he sometimes provides unintended comic relief. So perhaps you could just let him go for once and for all...

Lewis’s Mere Christianity would be a really, really good book for you to read and think about, Faded. It does a much better job of explaining the common elements and themes that unite the Christian Faith than I can possibly hope to accomplish here. The subject is tangential to the topic of this thread—although I can plainly see it’s a keenly interesting subject for you. So I’ll make you a deal. You read the book, and then we’ll open a dedicated thread to it and discuss it. Perhaps others would find it interesting as well and join in.

What do you say?

--Erik

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Sometimes I get the impression you don’t really want to engage me, Faded. Instead, you’d prefer to engage a caricature of me that you’ve created in your head. And the funny thing is—I dislike the caricature at least as much as you. He makes spectacularly bad arguments and is evidently thick as a brick. The most we can say is he sometimes provides unintended comic relief. So perhaps you could just let him go for once and for all...

I will forego collecting all of the many instances where you have taken little stabs and thrown little insults based upon your opinion that we have an incorrect understanding of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. If you don't want it to be a focal point of discussions with you, you might want to stop taking little pot-shots at what you perceive as a false teaching by the LDS Church. Indeed, you do seem to take great delight in bringing up anything you believe is controversial in our history and in our beliefs. It doesn't lend itself to a civil and thoughtful discussion. So just stop doing it and we'll get along fine. If you have a question about something, bring it up without implied bias or distaste.

Lewis’s Mere Christianity would be a really, really good book for you to read and think about, Faded. It does a much better job of explaining the common elements and themes that unite the Christian Faith than I can possibly hope to accomplish here. The subject is tangential to the topic of this thread—although I can plainly see it’s a keenly interesting subject for you. So I’ll make you a deal. You read the book, and then we’ll open a dedicated thread to it and discuss it. Perhaps others would find it interesting as well and join in.

What do you say?

--Erik

I'm pretty sure I have a copy of it around here somewhere. If I can't dig that up, I'll certainly be happy to purchase a new one. Of course, nobody ever nominated C.S. Lewis as "the man with the last word on all matters of Christianity." But I would enjoy discussing his works.

As it relates to the Protestant Reformation, the simple explanation of the LDS point of view is this: The Reformation began the changes that make the Restoration possible and successful. They were right about many things and wrong about many things, but it was God's work to lead them to question things and to ensure their success. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints views the Protestant Reformation as the light before the dawn, and essential to where we are today.

We disagree with the Reformers on a number of points certainly, but the diversity of doctrines and teachings that sprang from the Reformation make it impossible to be otherwise.

The points that I have brought up that remains unanswered:
1.) The Protestant Reformation and the religions that arose from it denounce a long list of Catholic teachings, practices and doctrines because they are not explicitly Biblical -- often even understood as being directly contradictory to the Bible. Yet there are a number of teachings that the Protestant religions adopt without the slightest questioning, and defend "to the death" in theological dialogue. The Trinity is just one of them. I would like to know why they so passionately defend doctrines that do not meet their own requirement of being "By the Scriptures Alone." The Trinity is THE prime example that is the basis of tremendous criticism targeting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, so I think it's a pretty valid point in context of the thread. Can you validate their criticism on this and other doctrines?
2.) Additionally, the Protestant religions did not entirely denounce the Catholic Church as false or leading the people astray. By failing to do so, they are leaving the clear implication hanging there that they believe that the Catholic Church is -- or at least used to be -- led and guided by God and his True Church and Kingdom on Earth. If there was no Apostasy, then the Catholic Church remains as God's True Church, doesn't it? This is where I see fence-sitting. A willingness to call Catholicism partly wrong, but no willingness to take those accusations to their logical conclusions. I find the notion of the Protestant Reformation having any validity completely contradictory in their claim that there was never a Great Apostasy or anything like it.

Broad and general summary of my thoughts on the Protestant Reformation: Accomplished many good things, but did not go far enough.

[ErikJohnson]

Far be it from me to leave you with unanswered points, Faded. However far from my OP it takes us…
;0)

Regarding your first one, keep in mind Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest authority—but it does not mean the Bible is the sole authority (that would be Solo Scriptura). Big difference! Protestants do consider the creeds that establish the Trinity (e.g., the Nicene and Athanasian creeds) to be authoritative. Not on par with Scripture—but authoritative none-the-less.

If you find it troubling that Christians use non-Biblical language (e.g., Trinity) to summarize and defend Biblical truths, the following short article may give you some perspective—
Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Regarding your second point, you seem to have forgotten the intent of the Reformers was to reform the Catholic Church, not destroy it. They didn’t think all of its teachings and practices were wrong—just some of them. Your charge that Protestants are “fence-sitting” by failing to take an all-or-nothing view of Catholicism makes little sense in the context of reformation.

If I were to venture a guess—your premise here is the LDS notion that “God’s True Church” implies a specific religious organization. But this premise is flawed. I suggest you take a broader, Biblical view of the Church as being the Body of Christ. The “True Church” is really all who believe—regardless of their Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox affiliation. Christians are the Church. Christians are the Body of Christ. I think this understanding will serve you much better than imagining there must be one true church organization, and the rest are false to varying degrees.

Regarding your interest in reading and discussing Mere Christianity—I’m pleased to hear it and definitely think it will be helpful for you (and useful for me to re-read as well). When you get your hands on a copy and make it through the intro, launch a thread and share your thoughts. I’ll keep up and add my own, and perhaps others will join in.

--Erik

[Faded]

To be completely honest, those two points have been puzzling me about the Protestant Reformation since I was a young boy.
1.) Why pick and choose which non-Biblical doctrines and practices are acceptable and on what basis?
2.) Why call the Catholic Church on the carpet for being wrong, but never carry that thought to it's logical conclusion when Catholicism rejected those claims?

Frankly, those two items have always given me pause with regard to the Reformation and Protestantism in general since I was old enough to understand the history of it. Yes Martin Luther started out trying to fix the Mother Church. After it almost cost him his life, he opted for creating his own religion. He gave up trying to fix the Catholic Church and made his own religion. And to this day, all of Protestantism is not in the business of trying to fix the Catholic Church. They have separated themselves from it, denounced it as false by degrees, and gone on their merry way. There is no intent to put the pieces back together again. The Roman Catholic Church could change everything the reformers said they should. They could make concessions. They could do anything you please. Protestant religions are not coming back into the fold. That is the reality.

The contrived philosophy of "the Body of Christ" containing all religions that teach Christ believe in Him is a quaint notion. It does not describe the way God operates though. It implies that everybody is right at the same time as long as they think they are right. It puts forward the theory that the Church and Kingdom of God on Earth is a kingdom of complete chaos, disunity and disarray. I don't recall God ever operating that way before. His house has always been a house of order. This theory contradicts that concept of order and unity. Describing the Kingdom of God on Earth as a body of people with unified doctrine, unified organization and unified purpose is not some made up notion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is exactly how the Bible teaches it.

As for the Trinity, it's just the best example of a doctrine that Protestantism accepted without bothering to question it's validity. I've not heard anyone ever offer a good explanation as to why the Trinity (and other doctrines) are given special status by all Protestant religions. This and other doctrines can never be questioned no matter what, yet nobody has ever been able to offer an explanation why they cannot be questioned.

Call me crazy, but here's what I'm seeing. Protestants rejected a long list of "core truth" doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. As a result, the Catholic Church denounced and rejected them as heretics and spent the next few centuries trying to eradicate them in various ways. Protestantism refuted the notion that they were heretical, claiming that they had it right and that Catholicism was clinging to falsehoods. A few centuries later, in the 1800's, the Protestants encounter "the Mormons" and treat them with the same vehemence, arrogance and spite that they had received at the hands of the Catholics. The underlying excuse? Because the Mormons were heretical and contradicting long established "core truths" of Christianity, claiming that Christianity was clinging to falsehoods. Sounds like absolute hypocrisy to me.

[Faded]

Always get interrupted mid-thought. Already posted the two items that always have and probably always will puzzle me about the Protestant religions in the world.

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Far be it from me to leave you with unanswered points, Faded. However far from my OP it takes us…
;0)

Regarding your first one, keep in mind Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest authority—but it does not mean the Bible is the sole authority (that would be Solo Scriptura). Big difference! Protestants do consider the creeds that establish the Trinity (e.g., the Nicene and Athanasian creeds) to be authoritative. Not on par with Scripture—but authoritative none-the-less.

I know that Protestantism generally accepts the Nicene Creed and the Council of Nicaea as authoritative. That is where I think it gets messy. If you accept one Ecumenical Council of as authoritative, then does that mean you accept them all?

If not, then several things must be explained.
1.) What is the basis for acceptance of decisions made by any of the Ecumenical Councils?
2.) At what point do you Ecumenical Councils cease to be valid?
3.) If at any point, the authority upon which Ecumenical Councils is founded ceases, then exactly what happened to that authority? What are the repercussions of this cessation of authority?
4.) What is the proper dividing line between valid Ecumenical Councils and invalid ones?

If you accept all Ecumenical Councils and the authority upon which they are based, then there is only one question to be answered: Why aren’t Protestants scrambling to beg forgiveness of the Holy Catholic Church and reconciling themselves to its undeniable authority? Why aren’t they rejoining the Catholic Church?

It is fine and well to claim that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are “authoritative, but less than Scripture.” I would have to say they are being taken as “higher than Scripture” because they define how you are to read and interpret the Bible.

Your charge that Protestants are “fence-sitting” by failing to take an all-or-nothing view of Catholicism makes little sense in the context of reformation.

When the Reformers started out, then the accusation of fence-sitting would be unfounded because they were trying to fix the Catholic Church. At some point, each of them gave up and founded their own religions. It is at that point where it becomes a valid point. If you’re leaving the Catholic Church but there is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church and you accept that they are the authorized “Body of Christ” then why leave?

If I were to venture a guess—your premise here is the LDS notion that “God’s True Church” implies a specific religious organization. But this premise is flawed. I suggest you take a broader, Biblical view of the Church as being the Body of Christ. The “True Church” is really all who believe—regardless of their Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox affiliation. Christians are the Church. Christians are the Body of Christ. I think this understanding will serve you much better than imagining there must be one true church organization, and the rest are false to varying degrees.

Contained within this hypothetical fraternity of “the Body of Christ” composed of all Christians, there is a problem. The Catholic Church does not accept the authority nor the right for the Protestant faiths to have separated themselves from their Mother Church. As of Vatican II, they softened their stance from, “they will all burn in Hell for eternity for their rejection of the Holy Catholic Church” to a more inclusive view: “They will suffer in Purgatory for their rejection of the Holy Catholic Faith, but the true believers from among Protestantism will be able enter Heaven and receive God’s Eternal reward thereafter.” The Roman Catholic Church still stakes it’s claim to being “the one true faith” and that the “God’s True Church” does indeed imply a specific religious organization. In their view, God’s True Church = The Holy Roman Catholic Church. So the concept is certainly not unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

If you hold Nicea creed to be authorative, then what do you make of the line in it....

"We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Regarding your first one, keep in mind Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest authority—but it does not mean the Bible is the sole authority (that would be Solo Scriptura). Big difference!

I did miss one thing there that needs clarification: Dictionary.com (sola) Sola: (Latin) alone; by oneself (I'll assume we're not going to bother worrying about the "female" and "stage directions" part of it.) Sola does not appear to mean "highest" or "first" or "having preference to." It means "alone."

Granted, this is not how Protestantism is and it is not how they have ever been. But since you brought up that bit of word play, I thought I'd point out that it doesn't appear to mean what you're saying it means. "Sola Scripture" = By the Bible/Scriptures Alone. The general idea with the word "Sola" is that it is not mixed with other company. Rather it is alone. Thought it was at least worth mentioning.

[jblake]

Originally Posted by Faded;

1.) Why pick and choose which non-Biblical doctrines and practices are acceptable and on what basis?

Denominations, and even non-denominations, such as the church of Christ, have a set of principles which they apply to biblical exegesis. As a general rule of thumb, the resulting doctrines are both mutually congruent, and have scriptural support for them. (This is equally true for seeker friendly mega-churches, as it is for rural snake handling Primitive Baptists. The difference is that the latter are far more vocal, and attempt to correct what they considered to be a sin, than the former.)

Individuals, OTOH, tend to partake of "cafeteria Christianity", picking only what sounds good to them, without investigating the scriptural basis of the doctrine. Things aren't helped when people don't bother to read the Bible for themselves, relying only on whatever the preacher says in the sermon, or what they pick up on the radio, or TV. Even worse are those that explicitly reject what is in the Bible, for the simple reason that it disagrees with Post-Modern Thought. Adding and abetting that "cafeteria Christianity" culture is fifteen odd centuries of Catholic Christianity adopting, and incorporating Pagan theology, rituals, and practices, into its theology, dogma, rites, and practices. (As one example, Rogation Sunday, and its kith and kin started out as Pagan days of rest from uninhibited frolicking.)

2.) Why call the Catholic Church on the carpet for being wrong, but never carry that thought to it's logical conclusion when Catholicism rejected those claims?

I don't think anybody can claim that the Waldensians did not carry out their rejection of Catholic theology to its logical conclusion. Likewise the Anabaptists carried out their rejection of Catholic theology, to the logical conclusion of their belief system.

John Hus rejected Tradition, unless it was derived from Scripture. He didn't live to see the Catholic Church admit that it was practicing that which was heretical according to Catholic Dogma.

What people forget is that Luther accepted both Scripture, and Tradition, provided the latter was in conformance to the former. Over time, Luther dug deeper into Catholic doctrine and practices, and found more and more of them lacking any basis in Scripture. Had the Pope addressed the specific issues of the 95 Theses, when it was nailed to the door, the odds are against the creation of Lutheran Christianity. (Probably the key difference between contemporary Lutherans, and contemporary Catholics is the acceptance/rejection of Vatican II and Vatican I.)

Reformed Christianity is based on TULIP. To the extent that Catholic Christianity rejects TULIP, Reformed Christianity rejects Catholic Christianity.

The Anglican Communion was as much a statement of political autonomy, as it was a throw back to Celtic Christianity. Theologically, it steers a course between that of Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, and Reformed Christianity.

By the time The Restoration Movement rolled around, things had quietened down enough to examine all aspects of Christian doctrine and practice. One consequence was throwing out everything since John wrote the Apocalypse. One ironical consequence is that once one throws out the teachings inflicted upon Catholic Theology by the Magisterium, there are virtually no theological differences between the two.

The Roman Catholic Church could change everything the reformers said they should. They could make concessions. They could do anything you please. Protestant religions are not coming back into the fold. That is the reality.

For the Roman Catholic Church to change everything that the reformers requested, would require two major shifts in theology. a)The rejection _in tota_ of Vatican II and Vatican I. Most of the Fifth Lateran Council, and Council of Trent would also have to be rejected; b) The rejection of the authority of the Magisterium, and the nullification of _all_ doctrine imposed by that body upon Catholic Christianity.

The contrived philosophy of "the Body of Christ" containing all religions that teach Christ believe in Him is a quaint notion. It does not describe the way God operates though.

Those that use the term "the Body of Christ" have a pretty specific definition of what it means. Whilst the various definitions are not one hundred percent compatible, there are areas of congruence.

As for the Trinity, it's just the best example of a doctrine that Protestantism accepted without bothering to question it's validity.

Whilst Luther didn't analyze it as deeply as he analyzed simony, he did conclude that it was valid Doctrine. Calvin likewise concluded that the Trinity was sound Biblical doctrine. You have to either go back the Council of Chalcedon (451), or fast forward to the mid-eighteenth century to find a branch of Christianity that did not support Trinitarianism.

This and other doctrines can never be questioned no matter what, yet nobody has ever been able to offer an explanation why they cannot be questioned.

I'm not sure what other doctrines you are referring to, but the validity of Trinitarianism has been repeatedly questioned. It might surprise you, but Pentacostal Christianity is split along the issue of Trinitarianism. Most of what falls under the umbrella of Protestant Christianity has found the Scriptural evidence in support of Trinitarianism conclusive, and the alternate theories lacking both substance, and foundation.

contradicting long established "core truths" of Christianity, claiming that Christianity was clinging to falsehoods. Sounds like absolute hypocrisy to me.

One critical difference: The majority of the leaders of both the Reformation, and Restoration Movement were willing to accept that what they taught was false, if one could demonstrate that it was false using either the sixty-six book, seventy three book, or seventy-six book Canon. Those same leaders, applying the same criteria to the Book of Mormon, a they applied to which ever Canon they utilize, find that it (Book of Mormon) fails on a number of critical (to them) points, and as such lacks divine inspiration.

I know that Protestantism generally accepts the Nicene Creed and the Council of Nicaea as authoritative.

"Protestant" is an all embracing term, that describes a number of different groups with incongruent theologies.
* Lutheran: Medieval Catholic Doctrine and Dogma stripped of heretical teachings by the Magisterium. ("Heretical" as defined by Catholic Ecclesiastical Law --- something which the Roman Catholic Church has more or less admitted to, for most of Luther's points.)
* Reformed Christianity/Calvinism, which advocates TULIP, or variants thereof;
* Reformed Christianity/Arminianism, which advocates Remonstrance, or variants thereof;
* The Anglican Communion: Medieval Catholic Doctrine and Dogma overlaid by both Celtic Christianity and Reformed Christianity;
The above groups tend to accept the first Seven Ecumenical Councils.

* Anabaptists, Waldenese, and related groups;
* Baptist Theology;
* The Restoration Movement;
* Pentacostal Christianity;
Those four groups tend to reject all Ecumenical Councils.

There are exceptions in both lists. For example, _Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ)_ is an example of a Restoration Movement Church that accepts the first Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Numerically, the first group might be larger. However, the second group is gaining members, whilst the first group is losing members. (Most individual church growth in the United States is the result of "church shopping". )

If you accept one Ecumenical Council of as authoritative, then does that mean you accept them all?

The Council of Rome (Circa 145) called by Marcion isn't recognized by any current branches of Christianity. (The only branch that accepted it, was Gnostic Christianity, and one can logically argue that they didn't accept it.)

The next three church councils [ First Council of Nicaea (325), First Council of Constantinople (381), Council of Ephesus (431)] were accepted by Orthodox, Oriental, and Catholic Christianity.

The next church council [Second Council of Ephesus (449)] has since been rejected by Orthodox, Catholic, and some branches of Oriental Christianity. I guess I should also specify that all parts of Protestant Christianity reject this one.

The fourth church Council [Council of Chalcedon (451) ] are accepted by Orthodox, Catholic, and some branches of Oriental Christianity.

The next two church councils [Second Council of Constantinople (553), Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) ] are accepted by Orthodox and Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Quinisext Council (692) ] is only accepted by Orthodox Christianity.

The next council [Council of Hieria (754)] is ignored by everybody.

The next council [Second Council of Nicaea (787)] is accepted by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) ] is accepted by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Fourth Council of Constantinople (879-880)] is accepted by Orthodox Christianity.

The next six councils [First Council of the Lateran (1123), Second Council of the Lateran (1139), Third Council of the Lateran (1179), Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), First Council of Lyon (1245), Second Council of Lyon (1274), Council of Vienne (1311-1312) ] are recognized only by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341-1351)] is granted some status in Orthodox Christianity, but is not universally recognized as Ecumenical council.

The next council [Council of Pisa (1409)is not accepted by anybody. (Talks broke down.)

The next council [Council of Constance (1414-1418)] is ostensibly accepted by both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. However, neither group implemented its resolutions.

The next council [ Council of Siena (1423-1424) ] is not accepted by anybody.

The next council [Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence (1431-1445)] is "sort of recognized" by both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. Again, we have a failure to implement the resolutions it passed.

The next two councils [Fifth Council of the Lateran (1512-1514), Council of Trent (1545-1563)] are recognized only by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Synod of Jerusalem (1672)] is granted some status in Orthodox Christianity, but is not universally recognized as an Ecumenical council.

The next council [ First Vatican Council (1870)] is accepted by Catholic Christianity.

The next council [Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)] is accepted by most, but not all of Catholic Christianity.

I think I'm missing at least one Western Church Council. I'm missing all of the Asian Church Councils.

As you can see, no branch of Christianity accepts all of the Western Ecumenical Church Councils. Reasons for accepting/rejecting a specific council tend to be theologically dependent. For example, Gnostic Christianity didn't abide by the decision of the Council of Rome called by Marcion, and as such, can arguebly be said to have rejected that council, even though it was called by one of their own.

If not, then several things must be explained.
1.) What is the basis for acceptance of decisions made by any of the Ecumenical Councils?

If the council considers the reasoned, scripturally based doctrine to be heretical, the adherents of that doctrine tend to reject that council --- even if fifteen plus centuries later the descendants of the other participants of that council say "oops, we misunderstood your theology. You aren't a heretic."

2.) At what point do you Ecumenical Councils cease to be valid?

This depends upon the specific Christian theology that the individual/organization has.

3.) If at any point, the authority upon which Ecumenical Councils is founded ceases, then exactly what happened to that authority? What are the repercussions of this cessation of authority?

Historically, the Church Councils accepted by Orthodox Christianity have been called by the _secular_ political leader of the region in which the council is held. Arguebly, this also applies to those accepted by Catholic Christianity, on the basis that the Pope is a secular political leader. (Orthodox Christianity considers that to be an abuse of papal power, and as such, an unacceptable grasping of illegitimate power and authority.)

The only example of a Church Council in the Bible, shows that it was called by those parties who disagreed with a specific aspect of theology. It has been argued that it is a bad example, because it did not produce any binding resolutions. Furthermore, any resolutions it did pass, were honoured in the breach thereof, by Paul.

4.) What is the proper dividing line between valid Ecumenical Councils and invalid ones?

This also depends upon the specific theology of the specific organization/person.

If you accept all Ecumenical Councils and the authority upon which they are based,

In as much as no branch of Christianity accepts all of the Ecumenical Councils, this, and the rest of your questions are theologically meaningless.

Why aren’t Protestants scrambling to beg forgiveness of the Holy Catholic Church and reconciling themselves to its undeniable authority? Why aren’t they rejoining the Catholic Church?

Consider that the Catholic Church abrogated to itself that which it had neither the authority, nor the right to claim unto itself. Furthermore, consider that it deliberately adopted a heretical position, and failed to request repentance for the heresies that it advocated, even when presented with evidence of those heresies.

jonathon

[Faded]

Long post there jblake. Many good points and I’m going to have to summarize to respond properly.

1.) Personal Study: There are not enough people who deign to call themselves Christians who never bother to study for themselves, know God for themselves and understand the teachings of Christ for themselves. If they have a religious question, they’ll go ask their minister about it. This is most unfortunate. I don’t know what the cure is for most of Christianity. They are quite set in their ways, and it doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon. Our religion has a solution that works fairly well: No paid clergy in any congregation. Everyone is expected to participate equally. Everyone might have to give a lesson or sermon on any given Sunday. Not sure if that change would go over so well in Mainstream Christianity, but I think it works for us. Far too many religious conversations I’ve had with non-Mormon Christians end in, “I’ll have to ask my pastor about that.”

2.) Pre-Reformation: My point about taking the rejection of Catholicism to its logical conclusion doesn’t necessarily find it’s fulfillment in Waldensians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Anabaptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Jan Hus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or even John Wycliffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for that matter. Everyone seemed quite keen on repairing the Catholic Church. When fixing the Catholic Church became impossible, they spent most of the rest of their existences as movements trying to survive the wrath of Rome. How seriously did any Pre-Reformation, Reformation or Post-Reformation movement ever consider the question: “Okay, so the Catholic Church is false. Now what? ” The effort was undertaken by all Protestant groups to separate fact from fiction through study of the Bible. I would say most of the foundational Reformers made fine progress, and I think each must have known their work was incomplete by the time they died. It is their successors who stand guilty of not going much further with things and not bothering to question things further. See item number 1. Ultimately, mainstream Protestantism denies the notion that there ever was a Total Apostasy, but to make that claim, they have to stay in bed with the notion that the Catholic Church from 0 AD – about 1400 AD was truly God’s all along. To hold that conclusion, you’d have to conclude that God will let a whole lot of corruption and nonsensical practices exist without bothering to correct them.

3.) The Council of Nicaea: The biggest trouble with Protestantism that frankly confuses the hell out of me, is the notion that some Ecumenical councils are authoritative and some are not. It even goes farther. Some pieces of some Ecumenical Councils are counted as authoritative, while some are not. The Council of Nicaea sees the majority of this. The question that nobody is bothering to answer: Why is the Council of Nicaea almost universally accepted as authoritative and correct when there are so many other councils that Protestants and even Eastern Orthodox and Catholics utterly reject? What makes Nicaea so special? The underlying basis for the validity of ANY Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is the notion that the Catholic Bishops (and by inference, the Catholic leadership) had the right from God to make doctrinal decisions. By the way, Mainstream Protestantism: accept Councils 1-7 with reservations (counting Nicaea I as the first council of course.)

4.) The Trinity: Where this leads is the Trinity, more than anything else. Yes you are right, there were movements who rejected the validity of the doctrine of the Triune God. Mainstream Christianity today still considers all such groups to be so heretical that they defy their right to call themselves “Christian.” On what basis? Based on the supposed infallibility of the Council of Nicaea. And you don’t even have to accept all of Nicaea. Just the Trinity. What is the basis used for such a nonsensical conclusion? If you can assert that Nicaea had the right to set doctrine into stone, then what’s the deal with all other Ecumenical Councils? More to the point, if the governing body at Nicaea was valid, then would that not establish the authority of the entirety of them all? In general, the vast majority of Protestant denominations wholeheartedly accept the Trinity. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation saying why.

5.) The Body of Christ: Those that use the terminology “Body of Christ” are asserting an entirely un-Biblical claim that “All Church’s are true as long as they fulfill X, Y, Z. Vast differences in doctrine are not important.” Where can we find this specifically taught in the Bible? Well, it’s simply not in there. It’s a Post-Reformation attempt to ask the whole of Christianity, “Why can’t we all just get along?” That’s very nice and all, but at no point does God nor Christ teach the notion of their Kingdom on Earth being a house of complete disarray and disorder. God never taught that “everything is true as long as some group thinks it is true.”

6.) Authority Comes From the Bible: This starts out well, but develops into something unfortunate. Based on using the Bible as a litmus test to determine what teachings of the Church were true and which were false, many errors in teaching and practice are rightly pointed out. So with that, the Reformers began the claim that was carried forward into succeeding generations: The Bible is the receptacle of all truth and that through prayer and reading the Bible, every question can be answered. If the Bible alone was sufficient to establish all truth, then there would only be one Protestant religion in the world. Not thousands, each claiming they have “a better understanding of the teachings of the Bible.” Since the word “Bible” never appears in any of the text of the Bible, it would be extremely difficult to substantiate that the Bible itself ever teaching any such thing. Then there is the notion of Priesthood Authority coming from the Bible. Again, the Bible never teaches any such thing. I’m not entirely sure where that concept originates. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints takes a different approach: At the point when the Protestant Reformation occurred, the Bible represented the most recent writings of authorized men of God. That makes it incredibly valuable. But I would challenge anyone in all Christendom to demonstrate that the Bible teaches that the Bible is all the written truth God will ever provide His children – and any cited passage would probably have to be THAT SPECIFIC if it’s communicating something THAT GAME-CHANGING. In my opinion, this is the unfortunate false myth generated by the Protestant Reformation, and probably never intended by the most of the original Reformers.

It’s an interesting change of gears from the 5 Solas to TULIP to describe the overall Protestant Reformation. It may do a better job of describing the Reformation, but there are exceptions to TULIP as well:
Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

Let me know if I have that right. That might be more of a Calvinist flavor of it.
I'll try to hit the rest of your points later.