r/Protestantism • u/Naive-Ad1268 • 11d ago
Was there Protestantism before Martin Luther??
I am someone who is interested in different religions and their history. Thing is that I know a little about you. I thought that Martin Luther was the one who started Protestantism but when I heard some Protestant Youtubers, they told that Protestants kick him out of the church. If that is so, then when exactly your denomination starts?? How was Protestantism before Martin Luther and after him??
6
u/AntichristHunter 11d ago
Yes there was. Wikipedia has an article on the various movements protesting the Roman Catholic Church for many centuries before the Protestant Reformation. See this:
Proto-Protestantism
Various movements with Protestant ideas (not necessarily all of Protestant theology, but the individual ideas) kept popping up throughout European history, and the Catholic Church kept persecuting these proto-Protestants.
These ideas weren't necessarily even limited to the western European church. There was an Eastern Orthodox patriarch who essentially taught Calvinist theology and other protestant-like ideas. See this:
Ah Yes, That Calvinist Orthodox Patriarch (Cyril Lucaris)
There was even a reformer in the Ethiopian Orthodox church:
Reformation in 1400s Ethiopia: The Forgotten Story of Estifanos
The reason these "protestant" ideas kept popping up in various places across Christendom is because these ideas are derived from the Bible.
when I heard some Protestant Youtubers, they told that Protestants kick him out of the church. If that is so, then when exactly your denomination starts?? How was Protestantism before Martin Luther and after him??
Protestantism isn't a single denomination. Denominations are organizations. Protestant ideas are much broader than any individual denomination.
Also, you shouldn't just believe what random YouTubers say. Who said this? Did they back up their assertions with any historical citations?
2
u/Naive-Ad1268 11d ago
btw why people were against Catholic church??
7
u/AntichristHunter 11d ago
It was hopelessly and completely corrupt, while it also had strayed from the teachings of the Bible. For one example, read this article:
The Pornocracy
(Pornocracy = "the rule of whores". There was a period when the Catholic church was ruled by literal sons of whores impregnated by popes, who were installed as popes. This went on for most of a century.)
And see this short documentary. You can see just how bad things got with the mixing of politics and religion.
The Origins of Papacy and the Road to Power
1
u/angryDec 8d ago
Can you explain why someone’s mother would validate or invalidate their ability to lead the Church?
2
u/AntichristHunter 8d ago edited 8d ago
This has nothing to do with who their mother is, and everything to do with how they came to power. Marozia of Tusculum, the harlot in question who had children with one of the popes, was immensely powerful, and she installed two of her lovers and two of her sons as popes. Someone could validly become a leader of the church even if their family has terrible sinners, but this isn't what we're talking about here. Popes who continued in the corruption and immorality of their fathers and harlot mother don't even meet Paul's qualifications for being an elder, much less what the Papacy claims the Pope to be. For example, Pope John XII, the grandson of Marozia, became pope at the age of 18, and died when he was killed when he was caught in the act by the jealous husband of a woman whom he was having an affair with. Their behavior is what damns them. The fact that they were puppets to an immoral woman who installed multiple popes into power just underscores what a sham the claims of the Papacy are.
If you want to see the timestamp of the video that begins the section on Marozia, here it is:
1
u/angryDec 8d ago
You might want to just constrain your critiques to the actual moral lives of the people involved, then.
Otherwise it does come across a wee bit distasteful and “blood guilt”-y.
I reject your interpretation of history regarding the papacy, it’s just a shame Christ (as per your view) left us orphans, unable to definitively solve such disputes.
I understand your anger and displeasure, I would feel the same if my Lord had abandoned me.
1
u/AntichristHunter 8d ago
You might want to just constrain your critiques to the actual moral lives of the people involved, then.
No, because it matters who put them in power. If the Papacy was so corrupt as to have the popes be puppets who were installed by an immoral person, that matters.
I reject your interpretation of history regarding the papacy, it’s just a shame Christ (as per your view) left us orphans, unable to definitively solve such disputes.
I understand your anger and displeasure, I would feel the same if my Lord had abandoned me.
You are misrepresenting my view. This is my view:
John 14:18-26
18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
—
The custodian of the church in Jesus' bodily absence is the Holy Spirit, not the Pope. Jesus did not abandon the church, and no pope is necessary. In fact, given the sordid history of the Papacy, it would have been better for Christendom for there never to have been a pope.
1
u/angryDec 8d ago
So the custodian is an immaterial, invisible Holy Spirit - as per your Ecclesiology. Understood!
Let’s dive into that:
How does the Holy Spirit clearly and definitively aid the Church into recognising how we should approach new moral issues?
IVF was not something the Apostles had to contend with, what has the Holy Spirit done to educate us on how we should approach that issue?
I have a few more questions regarding this model, but I don’t want to overburden you! :)
1
u/AntichristHunter 8d ago
How does the Holy Spirit clearly and definitively aid the Church into recognising how we should approach new moral issues?
Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, "he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
Morality is always guided by what has already been taught. No Papacy, with allegedly infallible rulings, is needed to determine these matters because the Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance the teachings of scripture. Scripture is sufficient for this.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
—
Scripture is profitable for reproof (correcting behavior) and correction (correcting error), and it even says "that the man of God may be complete". If scripture is sufficient to complete a man for these things, other things are not necessary.
Protestant ecclesiology has two modest premises:
- the church is fallible.
- the church is not one organization.
The first one is abundantly demonstrated in history. The church is a human institution, and humans are fallible. The second is also abundantly demonstrated in history. No single organization has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.
1
u/angryDec 8d ago
Thank you for replying friend!
I didn’t quite understand your response.
To be as crystal clear as possible, my question is how the Holy Spirit, as your custodian of the Church, tangibly and actually guides the faithful to know how we should respond to new ethical challenges.
If you can give me a concise, simple answer to that question I’d be very grateful.
If it would be helpful for me to do the same for the Catholic or Orthodox models, I’d be more than happy to!
→ More replies (0)1
u/AntichristHunter 10d ago
Another great video on why the protestant reformation had to happen:
Why Reformation Was Needed
1
u/juliathegreatest 10d ago
who are these YouTubers? Someone can send me a link to watch this? Or any material?
1
0
6
u/lkpllcasuwhs 10d ago edited 10d ago
Some argue the Orthodox Church start in 1054 is the precursor to the Protestant church freedom movements of the 1500s-1600s spearheaded by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus and others. By the way, Baptists are mostly Americans. Evangelical non-denominational movements started in the USA in the first and second great awakening in the 1700s and 1800s and have since spread widely
3
u/Humble-Currency-5895 11d ago
"Dekike Estifanos" a group of Ethiopian Orthodox monks, led by Aba Estifanos, who spearheaded a reformist movement in 15th-century Ethiopia,Africa challenging the authority of emperors and local lords. they opposed worship of mary
4
1
u/SeaSaltCaramelWater 10d ago
From my understanding, Luther invented faith alone Protestantism. There were two main movements prior that protested the authority of the Catholic church: the Lollards (14-16th centuries) and the Hussites (15th century).
1
0
u/TheRedLionPassant Anglican (Wesleyan-Arminian) 10d ago
Protestants did not "kick Martin Luther out of the Church".
However, there were some movements prior to Luther which had similar ideas to him. John Wycliffe and John Huss are two examples.
9
u/dabnagit 11d ago
I’m currently reading The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch and, yes, there were many other Protestant thinkers and leaders before (and concurrent with) Luther: John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, Huldrych Zwingli, and others. In the end, Luther mostly informed Lutheranism, which differed theologically and liturgically from much of the rest of Protestantism, which was mostly (but not solely) informed by John Calvin. (And Luther and Calvin had little influence on each other.)