Catholic/Protestant/Anabaptist

[Miss Friendship]

Do branches in the Christianity circle change?

A little background on this question.

In 1517, Martin Luther changed the world when he nailed 95 Theses to the door of a Roman Catholic chuch.

For many years the Catholics had been teaching that Salvation came through works--you earned your way to heaven.

The Protestants protested this and preached that Salvation came through faith alone in Jesus, and no works were part of your Salvation.

The Anabaptists came on the scene shortly after and concluded upon further study that Salvation was a combination of faith and works.

The Catholics and Protestants couldn't stand the thought of the other existing and battles and wars raged constantly. Of course the Anabaptists believed Jesus had forbidden the use of the sword and weren't part of this battle. Rather, both sides viewed them as heretics for baptizing as adults and refusing to baptize their infants. Thus if they were in Catholic territory they were imprisoned, tortured and often put to the stake. The same in Protestant territory although I believe the trend often was to drown the women instead of burning them.

So my question is, as an Anabaptist, why aren't Catholics and Protestants burning me at the stake today? What changed? And how?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Just a quick note, the Catholics were not teaching that Salvation came through works, common mistake so no worries.

Anabaptist not alone in that conclusion, that has pretty much been the conclusion of Christians since the time of Christ. The issue has always been how to balance those two.

What changed? The politics, it was all about the politics.

[Miss Friendship]

Please explain what you mean by "politics"

The Catholics teach faith now? Or they did then? But wasnt it the Protestants who made the Bible available to the people, while the Catholics controlled the people by having the scripture only in Latin, the holy language?

[Eleventh Doctor]

By politics I mean that Luther would have never succeeded or been allowed to live if the German princes weren't looking to already break with Rome. Same with the Anabaptist in Switzerland, if that region hadn't already dominated Europe militarily and had the natural fortress of the Alps then Protestantism there would have died out too.

They did then, they never taught Salvation through works. They simply had a different explanation for how one received Grace.

As for the Bible we've already been through this, while I don't agree with using Latin in services the Protestants didn't make the Bible available to everyone. It was still unreadable to most given the low literacy rates. This is why in Catholicism we see religious art, this was a way to make the stories of the Bibles and the Saints accessible to everyone.

[Miss Friendship]

So you are saying Protestism and Anabaptist would have died out if the politics hadn't been in order? I disagree, oh I disagree! I believe the reason why they lasted is because they were teaching truth and as its been said "blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church." The Anabaptists were forced to move everywhere because of the persecution.

Also, didnt the Catholics sell something that could give you grace? The story is told of a soon to be thief who bought some grace and then robbed the person who was selling the "grace" but the thief was forgiven due to his purchase. That sounds twisted if you ask me. Do Catholics still do this?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Yes I am saying that, Luther was protected by the German nobles. He would have been killed without that support. The Anabaptist survived because Swiss Reformers like Zwingli fought battles. The history of protesters against the Roman Catholic church before Luther and Zwingli was short lived. Now obviously you think you are teaching the truth but the political situation contributed to their survival.

Indulgences were a misstep in the Catholic church, who I disagree with on many things just to be clear, one corrected by the Catholic church in due time. If you actually read Luther's Theses none of them say why indulgences are wrong but simply why they should be given away for free. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli would not recognize the Protestantism of today. Catholics do not still do this.

[Miss Friendship]

I still don't get it. The Protestants hated the Anabaptists as much as the Catholics did and eventually they left Switzerland and moved onto Germany, and England and Russia and America. Nearly every place they went they were persecuted. So you believe the Catholics were in the majority of the right?

The Anabaptists have changed too over the years. Many of them no longer heed Jesus teachings on wealth.

How could Anabaptists survive through Zwingli when he was battling them as well? And you think it was right for Catholics and Protestants to fight? Why don't they now?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I don't believe the Catholics were right about everything, obviously, but many of the issues the Protestants had with Catholicism were corrected through actual reformation of the Catholic church. In any case the Protestant Reformation overcorrected and we see the results today with the thousands of different Protestant denominations.

The Anabaptist split off from Zwingli after the battles, the entire movement would have been killed if Zwingli hadn't fought.

No, I don't think it was right for them to fight or for the Protestant Reformation to occur. Why don't they now? Because most countries allow for religious pluralism.

[Miss Friendship]

Well that makes sense. I had forgotten that back then the religion and the government were tied together...thus forcing citizens to be part of what the country chose. I believe in separation of church and state...which also would explain one of the reasons why I believe war is wrong.

[jehoshaphat]

I would like to say a few things... The selling of indulgences was a very isolated practice that was condemned by the Church. Also life Father War said, the Bible was in Latin because of tradition and it would not have made a big difference. Before the printing press books were extremely expensive and most people couldn't read. And the Church has always taught that we are saved through faith with works. Our works show our faith. There were other abuses in the church that were legitamite and were corrected. Luther never wanted to split from the Church. He just wanted to have discussion about actual abuses in the Church.

Where did you get your Bible MF?

[Miss Friendship]

Where did you get your Bible MF?

From Christian Book Store online.

I take it that isn't quite your question?

[Eleventh Doctor]

No, he's asking who decided which books should be in your Bible?

[Miss Friendship]

No, he's asking who decided which books should be in your Bible?

Is this all about my bible vs. one like yours?

Do you know that someone could be saved just by reading the book of John?

I don't know who decided. I'm sure you're more than willing to tell me.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Your Bible vs the Catholic Bible may be what jehoshaphat wants to know but I don't know who decided what books would be in the Protestant Bible. I am genuinely curious.

The Scriptures read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to to the true Word of God, Christ Jesus.

[Miss Friendship]

Well isn't the only difference the Apocrypha? And I read somewhere that King James disproved of it before he ever promoted translating the King James Version. But I have done very little research on this myself. I am curious too. Although I don't think the Apocrypha is necessary, I do think its valuable.

Is it possible to read the scripture and come to a right conclusion without guidance as some might think as "interfering with their own interpretation" ?

[Eleventh Doctor]

The Catholic and Orthodox Bibles do include the Deuterocanonical books yes, Apocrypha has many more connotations than just the books in the Catholic and Orthodox books. The King James Version still included those book though, most Protestant Bibles did until recently, recently meaning a couple hundred years ago. The Protestant Bibles did put them in their own section though, considering them of questionable inspiration.

This of course brings into question the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura, if one can decide what to add or subtract from ones Bible then this doctrine becomes useless.

No, I don't think it is possible or safe to rely solely on ones own reading. As an Orthodox writer once said, the Protestant Reformation and Sola Scriptura made each Protestant his own pope.

[Miss Friendship]

I do agree a church should have a great influence in ones study in the Bible, but it shouldn't decide everything for him. That's the Holy Spirits job...to give more and more insight to a person. If a church is too heavily involved it may rule out any Holy Spirit inspiration...by insisting everything is set a certain way and there is no way it could have any error. A Church is not a government, but a body of believers, and they change as they study the Word more and more.

Yes, rules and doctrines in order help in a Churches' stability, but they also can be the means of cutting off change the Church should experience in order to become that perfect bride of Christ.

And also do you believe the Orthodox church is the only one qualified to hand out Truth, or is that not a fair question?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I'm not saying the Church should decide everything, probably more things than you think, but no not everything. However I don't think the, not a church but The Church, should change over time. After all Christ gave the Church the fullness of doctrine. What are some examples of things that should change over time?

So what does the Church need to change in order to become the perfect bride of Christ?

It's a fair question, no the Orthodox Church does not have a monopoly on truth. But it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

[Miss Friendship]

The church should be willing to change if suppose there is something in Scripture of Jesus's commands that they aren't obeying. If a church has been around for a few decades, it should regularly examine the "rules" they have collected to see if the rules are scriptural or really just tradition, thus the rules there by cultural and triditon should be a choice instead of a command for the people....if its not Biblical.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I agree, regular examination should be a part of the Church's life. I might just disagree on the Biblical part slightly, I agree that traditions should be in line with Scripture but I think you mean explicitly stated in Scripture. Whereas jehoshaphat and myself would say that Apostolic Tradition is in line with Scripture even if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture.