The Protestant Reformation: Were its Doctrines Inspired?

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by 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."

Ephesians 4:5 comes to mind—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” As does Acts 2:38—“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Though I’m no expert, I think the subject matter expertise of the church fathers who wrote the Nicene Creed is evident. It’s certainly authoritative—although that doesn't mean it's infallible.

What do you make of it, AnthonyB? I’m guessing you might argue Baptists who do not recognize infant baptism are in violation of the Creed (and Ephesians 4:5 for that matter). Is that where this is headed?
;0)

--Erik

[AnthonyB]

Eric,

To be truthful, it is a doctrinal issue I’m still working through, I grew up being taught that "baptism was for remission of sins" but in a normative not exclusive sense. That is that it is the biblical pattern that there was "one baptism" that has two aspects: inner and outer baptism. The inner being the spiritual regeneration by the blood of Christ through the Holy Spirit and the outer being the actual immersing in water. Although the two should normally, in properly responding to the gospel, be linked however it was possible through the grace of our Lord for the inner baptism to occur where the outer had not. I’d actually agree with the Bapo’s that faith, confession and repentance should precede baptism and therefore infant christening (no matter how meaningful to the parents) is not and could never be Christian baptism. I could write several pages on the bits I’ve put to together on this but truthfully I’m still working thoroughly through the Scriptures on it. Basically for me, there is one baptism for believers, which is designed to be when all of both inner and outer aspects that the NT ascribes to baptism occur. However in reality not much of the church agrees with my view and there I believe in the mercy of God to his children.

However from my understanding the only two Protestant (or rather non-Catholic/Orthodox traditional Christians) groups that actually hold to "one baptism for the remission of sins" and are therefore would be able fully affirm that line in Nicea are Lutheran’s and restoration movement churches. I’m happy to be corrected but Reformed churches largely follow Zwingle and I had read that they would have issues with that line in the creed. I have read a number of "reformed" fourms where they spoke dissaprovally of that line in the creed. (Humorously even for Baptist’s, baptism actually has to remit at least one sin, the sin of not having obeyed our Lord’s command to be baptised!)

So oddly enough although having never heard of the creeds nor being taught them as a young Christian I find myself able to fully agree with Nicea , despite holding the creed to be neither authoritative nor infallible.

Your idea of an authoritative but not infallible, runs counter to the whole original purpose of a creed, reducing it to something more akin to a "faith statement". A sensible approach IMHO to the creeds is to affirm them where they agree with the bible and follow the bible where they differ from it. But then I struggle to see how they are then authoritative, rather a statement of how one part of the church saw things at one time. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by authoritative but not infallible, could I chose to decide that the section that teaches the nature of the trinity is non-infallible (who gets to chose what is or is it infallible in a creed)?

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Eric,

To be truthful, it is a doctrinal issue I’m still working through, I grew up being taught that "baptism was for remission of sins" but in a normative not exclusive sense. That is that it is the biblical pattern that there was "one baptism" that has two aspects: inner and outer baptism. The inner being the spiritual regeneration by the blood of Christ through the Holy Spirit and the outer being the actual immersing in water. Although the two should normally, in properly responding to the gospel, be linked however it was possible through the grace of our Lord for the inner baptism to occur where the outer had not. I’d actually agree with the Bapo’s that faith, confession and repentance should precede baptism and therefore infant christening (no matter how meaningful to the parents) is not and could never be Christian baptism. I could write several pages on the bits I’ve put to together on this but truthfully I’m still working thoroughly through the Scriptures on it. Basically for me, there is one baptism for believers, which is designed to be when all of both inner and outer aspects that the NT ascribes to baptism occur. However in reality not much of the church agrees with my view and there I believe in the mercy of God to his children.

However from my understanding the only two Protestant (or rather non-Catholic/Orthodox traditional Christians) groups that actually hold to "one baptism for the remission of sins" and are therefore would be able fully affirm that line in Nicea are Lutheran’s and restoration movement churches. I’m happy to be corrected but Reformed churches largely follow Zwingle and I had read that they would have issues with that line in the creed. I have read a number of "reformed" fourms where they spoke dissaprovally of that line in the creed. (Humorously even for Baptist’s, baptism actually has to remit at least one sin, the sin of not having obeyed our Lord’s command to be baptised!)

So oddly enough although having never heard of the creeds nor being taught them as a young Christian I find myself able to fully agree with Nicea , despite holding the creed to be neither authoritative nor infallible.

Your idea of an authoritative but not infallible, runs counter to the whole original purpose of a creed, reducing it to something more akin to a "faith statement". A sensible approach IMHO to the creeds is to affirm them where they agree with the bible and follow the bible where they differ from it. But then I struggle to see how they are then authoritative, rather a statement of how one part of the church saw things at one time. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by authoritative but not infallible, could I chose to decide that the section that teaches the nature of the trinity is non-infallible (who gets to chose what is or is it infallible in a creed)?

I think I see your point, AnthonyB. It’s the “for” in “one baptism for the remission of sins” that you’re suggesting would be problematic—because it could be understood to imply an independent efficacy to the physical washing itself. Is that the gist of it? If so, then fair enough.

If the authors of the Nicene Creed meant to establish a doctrine of baptismal regeneration—then I wouldn’t hesitate to say they were wrong. But I’m far from being persuaded that this was the case.

Regarding the authority of creeds, I’ll cite John H. Leith’s Creeds of the Churches (sorry, it’s a book and I have no link)—

It remains to be noticed again that creeds do not receive their authority merely through the fiat of ecclesiastical authority. H. E. W. Turner has pointed out the importance of the common-sense wisdom of the Christian community, which in the long run is sounder than the action of church councils or the judgment of scholars. Creeds become authoritative when they become the common-sense wisdom, the consensus of the Christian community.

My original point was to clarify for Faded that Sola Scriptura never meant the Bible was the sole authority for Protestants. The Bible is the highest authority and the only infallible authority--but there are certainly other authorities informing and governing Christian life. Does that make sense?

Regards,

--Erik

[AnthonyB]

Erik,
The only (major) church that believes in baptismal regeneration is I believe the Roman Catholics, that is the baptism in and of itself remits sins. Although the Christian movement that I align with has been accused of teaching baptismal regeneration, I believe that is a false charge. I affirm that it is faith from first to last that obtains for us justification through the blood of Christ. Baptism without faith is just taking a bath. One of my faith movements’ wording has been "justification through faith at baptism". The NT links baptism to "remission of sins" because baptism is an integral part of a truly faithful response to the gospel. The NT doesn’t encourage people who believe in Christ to come to the front, raise a hand, make a private prayer or write in a response book. Although all of things can be valid first steps on the path of faith, the NT places baptism as the initiation ceremony of Christian faith.

Take the time to read Acts and list what people do in and around their Christian conversion. Jesus words in the Great Commission, Peter at Pentecost, Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, Saul/Paul (Or the already baptised disciples of John, who were rebaptised). In the NT, Baptism is part of faiths response to the gospel. The answer to what must I do to be saved, isn’t "repent, confess, believe and when you get around to it be baptised". It also isn’t "repent, confess, believe and once you’re a Christian then you should think about being baptised to obey Christ". Baptism is either among the things people are commanded to do upon receiving the gospel or where it isn’t explicitly commanded it is actually what they almost always immediately do when receiving the gospel.


However I see God as having given the church baptism as a gift not a burden. It was designed to give us a physical, public and symbol drenched (if you pardon the pun) act to root our response to the gospel, not as a "shibboleth" to judge and condemn others who disagree with what I think the NT says about baptism.


OK back to the creeds….


If your saying the creeds are an authority that can assist us in understanding from what viewpoint the Church universally looked at Scripture but your willing to walk away from the creed when it does not follow Scripture then that to me is reasonable. However please keep in mind that wasn’t what the creeds were created for or how they were used for most of their history. They were historically "rods of iron" used by states and state churches for beating people who couldn’t affirm every last words in them and used to divide and judge fellow Christians often on issues where the bible simply isn’t as clear as the creeds make it out to be. Sorry I’ll try to respect the creeds as important historical documents but the blood of so many innocent people that is directly the result of how the creeds were put to use inflames my response. I am acutely aware that for much of history and in much of Christendom, beliefs I hold dearly would have led to my persecution and the objects that would have been used against me are those very creeds and councils.

[ErikJohnson]

Hey AnthonyB—

We’re on the same page here: “I affirm that it is faith from first to last that obtains for us justification through the blood of Christ.” Have to admit I thought it was curious we were discussing baptismal regeneration on an LDS message board. In my experience, it’s not something LDS commonly consider or discuss (although it did produce several search results on lds.org).

But then I looked it up on Wikipedia, and it said the doctrine’s adherents include Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic factions of the Anglican Church, and—“Mormons.”

The nuances of Lutheranism and other denominations were briefly discussed as was the doctrine’s repudiation by the Reformed Churches. It’s not Wikipedia’s best effort—but I’m just happy our little rabbit trail has come full circle and is now back to my opening post. Because here again we seem to have an LDS doctrine that, generally speaking, aligns better with Catholicism than with the alternatives stemming from the “inspired” (as LDS claim) Protestant Reformation. The irony of that claim (vis-a-vis LDS doctrines) continues...

Regarding the historical meaning/implication of creeds—I’m sure you’re right that they were considered infallible by many. If memory serves, Luther took some serious heat for arguing Councils could err. But abuse in the past, disturbing and distressing as it is, doesn’t mean creeds and confessions aren’t useful and necessary to summarize and defend the Bible. Even the simplest confession, “Jesus is God” constitutes such a summation of Scripture (the sentence itself is found nowhere in the Bible) and a defense against those who would tell us Jesus was a created being or an organized intelligence or a spirit brother, or a—well, you get the picture.

Regards,

--Erik

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Hey AnthonyB—

We’re on the same page here: “I affirm that it is faith from first to last that obtains for us justification through the blood of Christ.” Have to admit I thought it was curious we were discussing baptismal regeneration on an LDS message board. In my experience, it’s not something LDS commonly consider or discuss (although it did produce several search results on lds.org).

But then I looked it up on Wikipedia, and it said the doctrine’s adherents include Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic factions of the Anglican Church, and—“Mormons.”

Baptismal regeneration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Baptismal Regeneration" is not the terminology that we use of course, but I don't think you should be too surprised to learn that we have quite a few beliefs in common with the rest of Christianity.

Baptismal Regeneration: "salvation is dependent upon, or more precisely, mediated through, the act of baptism; in other words, baptismal regenerationists believe that it is ordinarily necessary for one to be baptized in order to be saved."

Yeah, I'd say that much is 100% in line with LDS doctrine. The article is lousy at it's citations and does a terrible job of explaining exactly what Baptismal Regeneration is, and how the LDS Church teachings about baptism equate to Baptismal Regeneration. We certainly diverge greatly from the other Churches this article claims are proponents Baptismal Regeneration by taking a completely opposite stance from all of them on Infant baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and we most certainly do not hold the notion that an unbaptized baby or young child is damned to hell for not being baptized. Beyond the rather short and nonspecific statement of "baptism is essential" part, all the possible nuances of "Baptismal Regeneration" are left entirely unexplained. Obviously, a better definition of the belief needs to be provided.

The nuances of Lutheranism and other denominations were briefly discussed as was the doctrine’s repudiation by the Reformed Churches. It’s not Wikipedia’s best effort—but I’m just happy our little rabbit trail has come full circle and is now back to my opening post. Because here again we seem to have an LDS doctrine that, generally speaking, aligns better with Catholicism than with the alternatives stemming from the “inspired” (as LDS claim) Protestant Reformation. The irony of that claim (vis-a-vis LDS doctrines) continues...

Regarding the historical meaning/implication of creeds—I’m sure you’re right that they were considered infallible by many. If memory serves, Luther took some serious heat for arguing Councils could err. But abuse in the past, disturbing and distressing as it is, doesn’t mean creeds and confessions aren’t useful and necessary to summarize and defend the Bible. Even the simplest confession, “Jesus is God” constitutes such a summation of Scripture (the sentence itself is found nowhere in the Bible) and a defense against those who would tell us Jesus was a created being or an organized intelligence or a spirit brother, or a—well, you get the picture.

Regards,

--Erik

We come back to that point again. "When comparing Protestant vs Catholic, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints agrees with the Catholic Church more often than not." It's an interesting notion, but I don't think you've done a very good job of establishing your point. Anyone can say, "Drinking of alcohol is forbidden by God according to both Latter Day Saints and Muslims, therefore Latter Day Saints and Muslims are basically the same religion." Obviously, that would not be even close to true. Likewise, you can point out and emphasize all the bits and pieces where Catholics and Latter Day Saints agree on some point or another, but there are far too many instances where the Latter Day Saint point of view is entirely in opposition to the Catholic point of view, and aligns more closely with the Protestant viewpoint. Mostly, I just don't understand where you're going with this very poorly established point of yours. What is you underlying point exactly?

More specific to your point, the LDS Church has vastly differing views on baptism when compared to the Catholic Church. Sprinkling vs Immersion. Infant Baptism vs No Infant Baptism. Latter Day Saints are better aligned with certain groups within the Reformation on baptism -- namely those groups who sought to significantly rewrite how and when baptism was done in a person's life. We do not align well with those groups who sought little or no change on practices regarding baptism.

When it comes to Creeds and Ecumenical Councils, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is about as non-Catholic as you can get. We reject all of them. Some may have truths written into them, but from our perspective, they are not from God and are not authoritative. They are "best guess" theology at best and quite often more influenced by politics than by any consideration for what God thinks on a given matter.

To AnthonyB's point, I have to wholeheartedly agree. Either the Council of Nicaea is authoritative or it is not. I think that the council sought to do the best that it could under the circumstances. Most of the Bishops involved meant well, I've no doubt. But did that council of bishops have the right to establish a list of "do's and dont's" and "rights or wrongs" encompassing all Christian belief? If you affirm their God given right to do those things, yet you disagree with some parts of the Nicene Creed and Council, then you're creating a logical contradiction. Either their conclusions were from God or they were not.

I do hate to be a stickler on this point, but it leads directly into the number 1 lame excuse that Traditional Christianity uses to try to paint "Mormons" as "non-Christians." (The Nature of God and the Doctrine of the Trinity.) A Catholic can actually hold the line and insist upon the acceptance of the entirety of the decisions of the Council and subsequent councils -- or at least a logical progression of authoritative decisions made at Councils. Most Protestants disagree with at least some of the Nicene Creed. So the basis used by Protestants for calling "Mormons" non-Christian is that we are doing exactly the same thing Protestants are doing -- rejecting parts of the Council of Nicaea and other Councils. This has always been very puzzling for me and nobody seems to ever be able to provide a satisfactory explanation. Protestantism is founded upon dissent and disagreement with Orthodoxy, yet they are very keen to attack and belittle another newer religion for disagreeing with Orthodoxy on some points.

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

Sorry to be pendantic but the first Christian creed is in the bible. "Jesus is Lord" Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:13. However you have to understand that the Greek word "Lord" is used in the LXX for God (or YHW$) So they would have understood it as "Jesus is Jehovah". Inicidently it is the only creed I hold to be authoratative and infallible.

It is not just the "for remission of sins" that is a problem but the "one baptism". Zwinglian baptism suppporters (ie reformed christians) have to have two baptism, a spiritual one and the physical ordinance one, what I include as one baptism with two aspects you have as two distinct and unjoinable things.

Problem is that until 1520 when Zwingli thought it up not a single person in the preceeding 1500 years had ever believed that. Zwingli himself admits that not a single "doctor" had seen it his way, not Tertullian, Justin Matyr, Augustine or Luther. There is not the slightest support for Zwingli baptismal solution before he thought it up. No creed, no council, no theologian had ever attempted to deny that there was "one baptism".

[Faded]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Regarding the authority of creeds, I’ll cite John H. Leith’s Creeds of the Churches (sorry, it’s a book and I have no link)—

It remains to be noticed again that creeds do not receive their authority merely through the fiat of ecclesiastical authority. H. E. W. Turner has pointed out the importance of the common-sense wisdom of the Christian community, which in the long run is sounder than the action of church councils or the judgment of scholars. Creeds become authoritative when they become the common-sense wisdom, the consensus of the Christian community.

What constitutes "consensus"? Everyone unanimously agreeing (which never happened on almost any doctrinal matter) or majority rule winning? With all due respect, whichever the case may be, I cannot fathom eternal truth being subject to a popularity contest amongst fallible mortals. One of the the truest statements ever: "What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right." The consensus (of sorts) of the Jewish scholars did not ultimately lead them to truth. It led them to the disaster of missing their own Messiah when he came to them. So how should a "the most popular theology wins" policy hope to see any better results?

Granted, I might be entirely misunderstanding the quote. If that is the case, then please offer a better explanation of "Creeds become authoritative when they become the common-sense wisdom, the consensus of the Christian community." I suppose that I really need to get some grasp on the legitimacy of authority for any and all Ecumenical Councils, etc.

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Erik,

Sorry to be pendantic but the first Christian creed is in the bible. "Jesus is Lord" Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:13. However you have to understand that the Greek word "Lord" is used in the LXX for God (or YHW$) So they would have understood it as "Jesus is Jehovah". Inicidently it is the only creed I hold to be authoratative and infallible.

It is not just the "for remission of sins" that is a problem but the "one baptism". Zwinglian baptism suppporters (ie reformed christians) have to have two baptism, a spiritual one and the physical ordinance one, what I include as one baptism with two aspects you have as two distinct and unjoinable things.

Problem is that until 1520 when Zwingli thought it up not a single person in the preceeding 1500 years had ever believed that. Zwingli himself admits that not a single "doctor" had seen it his way, not Tertullian, Justin Matyr, Augustine or Luther. There is not the slightest support for Zwingli baptismal solution before he thought it up. No creed, no council, no theologian had ever attempted to deny that there was "one baptism".

Hey AnthonyB--

I don’t mind “pedantic” as long as there’s some insight with it—and I have not found your posts wanting in that regard. I didn’t know the Greek word rendered “Lord” in our English New Testaments was the same word for God in the Septuagint. But knowing that adds to the argument (if further evidence were needed).

However, it appears there must have been some ambiguity in the word because Jesus is referred to as Lord a number of times in the Gospels—and it doesn’t seem like the context is God each time. And when Thomas beholds the risen Christ and proclaims “my Lord and my God”—it doesn’t seem like his intent was to be redundant. Based on this, I wouldn't think it necessary to revise my revious post.

Regrettably, I know nothing of the ancient languages. But if I were going to make such a study—Greek would be it.

Regarding Zwingli’s observation that there was such a thing in the New Testament as “spiritual baptism” apart from “physical water baptism”—I think he’s right. I hadn’t thought of it in the context of the Nicene Creed—but I agree it could be seen as problematic.

Regards,

--Erik

[jblake]

Originally Posted by Faded;

1.) Personal Study: There are not enough people who deign
to call themselves Christians who never bother to study for themselves,

If you rephrased that as either "There are not enough people who deign
to call themselves Christians who both to study for themselves", or
"There are too many people who ..." I'd agree with it. (The rephrasing
would also be more congruent with the rest of the paragraph.

The issue isn't paid v unpaid clergy, but rather how integrated mutual
edification is within the congregation.

How seriously did any Pre-Reformation, Reformation or
Post-Reformation movement ever consider the question: “Okay, so the
Catholic Church is false. Now what?

Pre-Reformation: Hussites probably would have done so, had they not
gotten bogged down in fighting the crusaders.

Something that few people appreciate, is how much control the Catholic
church had over people in Europe, between the fall of Rome, and the
Reformation. For all practical purposes, to defy the church was to defy
the state, with either execution for sedition, or excommunication by
Rome, as the immediate result. (Luther was lucky, in that the German
Princes were being bankrupted by a Pope that was very obviously
violating the fundamental tenants of Catholic Christianity.)

Very few people will argue against the status quo, when doing so will
result in them being killed.

Post Reformation: The Restoration Movement in general. Albeit not a
denomination, _Church of Christ (Non-institutional)_ would meet your
criteria. _Church of Christ (A Capella)_ and _Church of Christ
(Instrumental)_ would probably also meet your criteria. (I'll grant
that they are not denominations.) Arguably, Landmark Baptist Church
also meets those criteria.

See item number 1. Ultimately, mainstream Protestantism denies
the notion that there ever was a Total Apostasy,

The Mainline Protestant denominations are:
* Episcopalian --- more specifically ECUSA;
* Presbyterian --- more specifically PCUSA;
* Methodist --- more specifically UMC;
* Lutheran --- more specifically ELCA;

The Seven Sisters of American Protestantism are:
* American Baptist Churches (USA) - ABCUSA;
* Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ) - DoC;
* United Church of Christ - UCC;
* United Methodist Church - UMC;
* Presbyterian Church (USA) - PCUSA;
* Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - ECLA;
* Episcopal Church of the United States of America - ECUSA;

The concept that there was a Total Apostasy would be an anathema to most
(?all) of them.

The greater congregational autonomy is, the more likely the congregation
is to state that there was Total Apostasy, and give criteria defining
when it occured.

In those congregations that teach that there was a Total Apostasy, their
explanation is that there always was a group of people that either
worshipped separately from Catholic Christianity, or tried to correct
Catholic Christianity from within Catholicism. In both instances, "The
gates of Hell swung forth from the Catholic Church, with Satan riding
forth, to destroy those who proclaimed the Good News."

you’d have to conclude that God will let a whole lot of
corruption and nonsensical practices exist without bothering to correct
them.

The doctrines, beliefs, and practices that led up to the church being in
apostasy took centuries to develop. Even so, there were those who tried
to correct things, being killed by the Church, for their labours, as a
way of thanks.

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.

Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and Oriental Christianity
have specific rules governing whether or not a specific council is both
ecumenical, and authoritative. As such, there is no logical reason to
require Protestant Christianity to accept any council that claims to be
both ecumenical, and authoritative.

Why is the Council of Nicaea almost universally accepted as
authoritative and

The primary significance of Nicaea is the creed attributed to it. More
precisely, the second version of that creed. For all practical purposes,
one has to reject all creeds, to be logically consistent in rejecting
all ecumenical councils.

Historically, Christianity has been a creedal religion: This is what I
believe, blah, blah, blah. Anybody who doesn't believe what I believe
is not a Christian. (One can have the "anybody who does not
believe what I believe is not a Christian, without creeds. However, that
position tends to be more difficult to justify.)(Historically, Creeds
have served as tools to divide, and destroy, rather than their claimed
unify and consolidate.)

The secondary significance of Nicaea, and the rest of the ecumenical
councils, is that they provide support for rejecting theological
positions that are currently unpopular, but for which there is some
scriptural support. (The usual response is along the lines of: "The
church has always rejected that position. See this verse in the Bible,
and how it was reinforced by this Council, and this Early Church Father,
etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile, when one sits down and examines the
evidence, the position was not always the one held by the Early Church
Fathers. Taking your example of Trinitarianism, the majority of the
Pre-Nicene Fathers were Modalists, not Trinitarians. (Even at Nicaea,
Modalists outnumbered Trinitarians by roughly 3 to 2. Adherents of the
big "heresy" that Niceae tackled, were almost equal in numbers to
Modalists and Trinitarians combined.It was only after the third
ecumenical council, that Trinitarianism emerged triumphant, with no
opposition until the beginning of the Pentacostal Movement.)

By rejecting Tradition in tota, one swims in a sea that is, at best,
utterly alien. Tradition is a very hard thing to reject.

Mainstream Protestantism: accept Councils 1-7 with reservations
(counting Nicaea I as the first council of course.)

Reformed Christianity recognizes them, but downplays their significance.

The Protestant movements that grew out of the Anabaptists do not accept
those councils. Baptists, and related movements don't accept those
councils. _Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ)_, and _United Church
of Christ_ are probably the only groups to emerge from the Restoration
Movement, that accept those Councils. (They also explored, and embraced
"in non-essential, liberty" aspect of the Restoration Movement, more
than the other Restoration Movement groups did.)

Mainstream Christianity today still considers all such groups
to be so heretical that they defy their right to call themselves
“Christian.” On what basis?

With roughly 1400 years of Christianity proclaiming a Trinity, and
rejecting everything else as heretical, it is an idea that has become
ingrained with Christianity. The usual alternative is Unitarianism,
which, whilst having some scriptural support, is also contradicted by
some passages. The other suspect is monophysite, which is merely a
refinement of Trinitarianism, albeit one that is harder to grok.
Modalism was virtually ignored until the beginning of the Pentacostal
Movement. This history serves to construct a bias favouring
Trinitarianism, and excluding all else. It is very hard to conceive of
C, when all one has heard of is "A", and "Not-A".

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?

a) Orthodox Christianity has Canon Law that defines the requirements
for a Church Council to be binding upon all. (Case in Point: The Synod
of Jerusalem is not usually considered to be a binding Church Council
within Orthodox Christianity, because of certain technicalities that
were not met. However, that Council served to define, and refute
Protestant Christianity with its attacks on Orthodox Christianity.

b) Other than who called them, what was the difference between the
Council of Rome, and the Council of Niceae, that made the latter
authoritative, but not the former? That difference explains why both
Catholic and Orthodox Christianity reject the Council of Rome, even
though it dealt with issues that are greater than anything that has been
discussed at any council since then.

The Body of Christ: ... 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 is a response to "At what point is something an essential, rather
than a non-essential?"

Is using a musical instrument in Church a mortal sin? Yes, according to
_Church of Christ (A Capella), whilst Mars Hill Church would respond
with "say what?" proceeding to carry out their contemporary worship
service with electric guitars, drums, synthesizers, and other
instruments more commonly associated with Death metal and FuturePop,
than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

The example might seem silly, but _Church of Christ (A Capella)_ is just
one example of a group of people saying, "This is an essential", in the
face of people wondering why, and how it could be anything but a
non-essential. Repeat this across ten thousand points of doctrine, and
you'll have ten thousand different groups, drawing a line saying "this
is an essential".

An extreme example of "essentials" is two groups who doctrines,
theology, and practices are identical, except on one point: Group A
baptizes in a river. Group B baptizes in a baptismal font in their
church building. Group A condemns Group B for going against the
teachings of the Bible, citing John the Baptist and The Ethiopian
Eunuch, as evidence from the Bible, and the Didache as evidence of what
the Early Christian Church did. Group B points out that river isn't
running water year round, and furthermore, by having the baptismal font
in the church, the person can be immediately baptized. However, if you
want to baptize in the river, that is fine by us. (I'm trying to imagine
somebody getting baptized in the Jordan River in mid-January. Or even in
mid-July.(How can it get so polluted so close to its starting point.))

It’s a Post-Reformation attempt to ask the whole of
Christianity, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

One of the slogans of the Restoration Movement was "in essentials,
unity. In non-essentials, liberty". The crucial issue is what
differentiates an essential, from a non-essential. Trying to define
each and every thing as "essential", when all one has to go on, is
Tradition, is an exercise in futility. (Orthodox Christianity has
always recognized that. Catholic Christianity only recognized that,
after being ripped apart during the Reformation.)

God never taught that “everything is true as long as some group
thinks it is true.”

True.

The flip side is that the Bible doesn't lay out a precise,
specific set of beliefs and practices, that are utterly unambigious. Is
one's interpretation and understanding of the doctrine and practice
correct? Oriental, Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity have a hierarchy
that states: "This is what Tradition teaches. This is what Tradition
practices." The closest that Protestant Christianity comes, is in the
magisterial branch. Even then, it is up to the individual to accept, or
reject the doctrine, teaching, or practice.

Instead of getting tangled up in a fruitless quest, it is a tacit
agreement to disagree, but ignore those differences for the task at hand.

Authority Comes From the Bible:

That can be understood in at least four different ways.

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.

This ignores the differences between acceptance of private revelation on
a personal level, and acceptance of private revelation on a corporate
level.

It also ignores the differences in understanding

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.

This gets awkward. Depending upon how the Biblical Canon is defined,
and specific pericopes within it are understood, the Bible is both
self-defined, and claims authority greater than that of Tradition. (The
hard part is determining which books are being referred to, since they
are not listed by name, but by subject matter. In one of the Gospels,
Jesus implicitly endorses the TaNaKh. In one of the Pauline Epistles,
there is an implicit endorsement of Maccabees.) In the Catholic
Epistles, the Pauline Epistles are endorsed as "Scripture". What they
all lack, is a specific list of books.

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.

That has two sources:
*The Priesthood of Aaron;
*The requirements of the Roman Empire, after making Christianity the
official State Religion;

Conflate the two, either by design or accident, and the theology
develops, even though there are passages in the NT that contradict it.

demonstrate that the Bible teaches that the Bible is all the
written truth God will ever provide His children

Depending upon how, and which books one selects for one's canon, this can be either implicitly, or explicitly demonstrated.

It’s an interesting change of gears from the 5 Solas to TULIP to
describe the overall Protestant Reformation.

"Protestant Christianity" is a label of convenience, applied to a number
of usually similar theological positions. The acceptance/rejection of
the individual points of TULIP and the Remonstrances make a much clearer
differentiation between the theological positions of the various groups
ascribed to Protestant Christianity, than redefining each of the Five
Solas for each of the different theological positions within Christianity.

It may do a better job of describing the Reformation, but there
are exceptions to TULIP as well:

That is why the theology of the specific organization has to be examined
against both TULIP and the Remonstrances. The Restoration Movement is
probably the most significant branch that rejects both.The primary
reason it gets dumped into "Protestant Christianity", is that it
emphatically rejects both Catholic and Orthodox Theology. Few realize
that it also rejects TULIP, The Remonstrances, and the Five Solas.

TULIP:
* Total Depravity;
* Unconditional Election;
* Limited Atonement;
* Irresistible Grace;
* Perseverance of the Saints

Remonstrances:
* Total Depravity;
* Election is conditional upon faith in Christ;
* Unlimited Atonement;
* Free will to resist God's grace;
* Preservation of the saints is conditional upon the believer remaining
in Christ;

Counter-Remonstrances:
* Predestination is conditional;
* Atonement is in intention universal;
* Man cannot exercise saving faith;
* The grace of God is resistible;
* Believers can fall from grace;

Five Solas:
* Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone");
* Sola fide ("by faith alone");
* Sola gratia ("by grace alone");
* Solus Christus ("Christ alone");
* Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone");



jonathon