Or in other words, mainstream Protestantism is Restorationism with inconsistencies. It is also sth else with inconsistencies.
Here is my source for what the word Restorationism means:
What is Restorationism?
Here is the definition:
“Restorationism” refers to a group of unaffiliated 19th-century movements from within Christianity based upon the premise that the true faith and practice of the church had been lost due to apostasy and that the church needed to be restored to its New Testament model.
Well, how exactly does this differ from Protestantism?
Reformers were accusing the Catholic Church of being an Apostate Sect.
That is what "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" and identifying Papacy over several centuries as the Antichrist was about. No wonder these early Protestant positions are very popular with Restorationist "Churches." Most sites now presenting Newton's famous or infamous reading of the 1260 days as chronologically 1260 years that I know of are 7th Day Adventist ones.
Here is a further discussion of what it means:
While all these groups teach widely divergent theologies, and while some restorationist groups are considered cults (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses) with other groups being considered valid Christian movements (the Restoration Movement), they have in common the notion that true Christianity had died out many years ago and it needed to be restored to its original New Testament form. Some of these groups believe they alone are the embodiment of true Christianity, some going so far as to teach that all other groups, including mainline Protestant denominations, are not really Christians at all, having lost their way over the centuries to complete apostasy. They are convinced that the drift from Christian principles is so extreme as to render the church irredeemable, and, therefore, it must be completely rebuilt. Denying that past historical patterns have any validity at all, they are free to embrace what they understand to be pure biblical truth as revealed to the apostles.
Well, the thing is, if the Church found by Protestant Reformers was not "irredeemable", why was it so important to them to leave it? Which, after some time of Luther shilly-shallying, they did. With violence about pre-existing Church buildings, which Catholics wanted to keep as they were and Protestants wanted to demolish the interior of, as a consequence.
How much is this "mainstream Protestant" site ready to concede to Restorationism?
Certainly, there have been abuses and misuses of the Word of God down through the years by churches claiming to speak for Christ. One has only to look at the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory, prayer to Mary, and the veneration of saints—all of which are completely unscriptural—to agree that, in some cases at least, church tradition has superseded the Bible as authority.
Now, the man writing claims these are "completely unscriptural", a charge which doctrine for doctrine I have answered elsewhere.
If a Church claiming to be that of God has doctrines which are "completely unscriptural", I take this means not just not directly in the Bible but against the Bible, how can it be the Church of God?
Perhaps if such a doctrine is optional. From Pius XII to recently, "Adam's body evolved from primates, but his soul was created immediately by God and so was Eve, from his rib" has been considered optional, a valid option for Catholics wanting to accomodate Evolution.
A diocese which in 1947 or 1950 agreed on this would not automatically become a diocese outside the Church of Christ, since, while this doctrine was strictly unscriptural (a point which Pius XII refused to decide, leaving it for future discussion, like Pilate "washing his hands", nearly), the diocese in Paris in 1947 or some diocese in US or UK on 1950 were not pretending to outlaw the traditional doctrine, both Biblical and Patristic.
I would say, this is true even if the situation has gone on longer. Since at least 1820, Heliocentrism is considered optional. But Geocentrism was not outlawed. The Geocentric Father Anfossi was told he could not condemn the physics book by Settele, but he was not told he had to become a Heliocentric himself.
Also in 1893, Pope Leo XIII was vaguely (without direct mention of the point) commending as optional the Heliocentric view, with an exegesis of "phenomenal language" for Geocentric passages. Note, optional. Or actually, it is saying some phenomenal language does occur, but not specifying if Geocentric expressions are part of that case. Therefore, Heliocentrism is optional. Any theoretical diocese (I have no historic knowledge of a factual one, with certainty) which treated this solution as obliging the faithful to abandon the Biblical and Geocentric world view was at least wrong, and by itself would have been automatically excommunicated : for schism, because arrogating to itself the right to declare illicit what had been lawful before and at times even obliging, when the Pope himself had not declared it illicit, and for heresy, because the doctrinne is in fact unbiblical, and by making it obligatory, they are not excusing individual adherents from the sin of heresy, but falling themselves into that, bishop and clergy along with laymen. It could only have survived as a Catholic Diocese by the Pope excusing the bishop as an overenthusiastic reader of Providentissimus Deus 18 on some few sentences:
To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
Some other sentences make inerrantism exceedingly clear as non-optional, like it has always been.
And that Pope so excusing the bishop remaining Catholic (true of at least Leo XIII, St Pius X, most probably Benedict XV and again certainly Pius XI) as deciding to leave corrections or real decisions for later, when things clear up. And that Pope remaining Catholic also holding the diocese to be Catholic. Just as a King*, representing God's justice on earth, can decide that a murder is not executed, (especially while deciding a bit more if it was murder of self defense) a Pope, representing the Faith and Grace on Earth, can decide that someone not materially orthodox is nevertheless not cut off from grace for heresy.
Is it necessary for the Pope to explicitly have at least in pectore have considered Geocentrism as true and in fact obliging? I think a Pope could also be excused, as long as Heliocentrism remained optional to him.
So, the Catholic Church can remain Catholic, if that is the right Church, as long as unbiblical doctrines like Heliocentrism and Evolution remain optional. If however a diocese starts treating these errors as dogma and the truths as heresy, even the Pope has no power to declare such spiritual tyranny to be acts of a bishop ruling in the Catholic Church over a diocese. A Pope not excommunicating such a diocese would fail in his duties, as lamentably as Honorius I when it came to Monotelethism.
Now, what does this principle mean for the claim of "got questions"?
Supposing "the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory, prayer to Mary, and the veneration of saints" had been un-Biblical, the Roman Catholic Church could only have remained the or a Church of Christ by leaving these doctrines as optional.
But in fact it did not.
It was liturgically confessing these doctrines, and therefore obliging anyone participating in the liturgy to "confess with his mouth" these points. Not just since this or that more or less recent Council claimed as Ecumenical, but by the constant liturgic practise. August 15 was a Holiday of Obligation** and each diocese was obliging all faithful not having a particular excuse to be in Church, as on a Sunday, even if it was not a Sunday, because Assumption of Our Lady was kind of equivalent to a Sunday. Attending in Church on that day automatically implied you were accepting the Mariological content of the feast. Or, the Protestants would have it, the "Mariolatrous content".
The feast is older even than the Schism between East and West, in the East it is called Dormition of Our Lady and it is held she did not remain in the grave. She was taken to Heaven and is its Queen, just as Her Son is Heaven's King.
If you don't believe that, you have no business being in Church on August 15, and ALL Catholic dioceses, as well as ALL Orthodox, as well as ALL Coptic and Armenian and as well as ALL Nestorian ones required you to be in Church that day.
Fact checking for Nestorians, first attempt:
Confessional Gadfly : Are You a Nestorian?
Rev. Eric J Brown | Monday, August 16, 2010
"Over at his blog, Rev. Mason Beecroft posts his sermon from yesterday in which he laments that the LCMS calls August 15th "Mary, Mother of our Lord" instead of "Mary, Mother of God." (Okay, he rails)."
(Mason Beecroft's blog is private, that is why I cite the post citing it)
In fact, not a good fact check, since LCMS is Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore or Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. While considered by some fellow Lutheran as Nestorianising, it is not the communion going back to Nestorius.
Here is a better fact check:
Tuesday August 15th, 6:00pm
DOUKHRANA d MART MARYAM
Tuesdays are not Sundays.
And here is a liturgic text***:
In the plan of your wisdom
she who bore the Christ in her womb
was raised body and soul in glory to be with him in heaven.
Note, of the Pre-Protestant Churches, Nestorians are furthest away from Roman Catholics. They too believe she remained virgin, and, what Lutherans and Anglicans and Calvinists usually don't do, that she was lifted to Heaven.
If you don't believe that, for centuries you had no diocese to go to and worship with.
A Nestorian Church will consider you as a sinner and as an apostate if you consistently don't go to Church on August 15. Precisely as a Catholic and an Orthodox Church will. On the other hand, if you believe this doctrine is unbiblical, you are committing hypocrisy or even apostasy in your own eyes if you go to Church on August 15 (unless it's a Sunday).
So, a Calvinist not believing this would have to ultimately choose between Restorationism or Catholicism (of some sort, ranging from Roman to Nestorian).
How does "got questions" deal with this?
Of course, parts of the church have apostatized, but there has always been a remnant of the faithful preserved by God for His purposes.
Either believing Our Lady is with Christ in Heaven, body and soul - and this imples she is Queen there, since in Judah the queens were mothers of the King - is not apostasy or it is. If it is not apostasy, "Mariolatry" is no reason to leave the Catholic Church. If it is, the "remnant of the faithful" was an invisible one. Or has since become so to us.
And, as said elsewhere, an invisible remnant is un-Biblical. Whether the rock in Matthew 16 is Christ or St Peter or both, it is clear the Church is built on a rock. One way of looking at it is, the Church is a city built on a Hill.
One cannot have centuries through which a City built on a Hill is hidden behind a city built around a swamp (on seven hills or not). Not even hidden in retrospect.
All attempts to identify this faithful remnant for centuries like the Vth Century AD or VII C. AD have failed - obviously for those thinking the great mass of Catholics back then were apostates. A Catholic need not identify "a remnant" for those centuries, since identifying those centuries as not being the ones after the Great Apostasy, not being the ones in which the true Church is reduced to a remnant.
Note how very different Pope Michael's claim is from the restorationist one. He is Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric and can point to recent decades in which the positions were at least licit.
A Restorationist like Calvin could not point to recent decades in which Catholic dioceses had not been obliging the faithful to August 15.
Now, the mainstream Protestant position of "got questions" is inconsistent.
In 1400, apparently, one could in most places (those not obliged by presence of Hussites or Culdees) celebrate August 15, believing or confessing belief like a Catholic. But in 1600 you were somehow obliged (at least unless stranded among Spaniards) not to do so, on pain of being an apostate.
On the other hand, if in 1600 you were stranded among Spaniards, you would still, on this view, be obliged to confess your horror of "mariolatry" since maintaining silence and pretending too much to acquiesce (like going to Church on August 15°) you would be
In fact, criteria for apostasy can change through Church discipline. Each new council of the Church adds to the criteria. This is why we don't quite consider the Nestorians as Christians, when refusing Her the honour of Mother of God. Ephesus I, 431 AD. I have heard, Nestorius himself accepted the verdict, resigned as Patriarch and went into a monastery, from which he only emerged again after Chalcedon, 20 years later, after 20 years of penitential silence. He considered, after what I heard, Chalcedonian formula is what he meant.
But an act like the Reformation - not involving higher clergy, usually, not pointing back to recent decades of admitted orthodoxy or at worst optionality of heterodox position - is not a licit means for changing the criteria of what is Christian faith, either true or at least possible, and what is apostasy and known to be so.
The Protestants were doing it anyway, because, at heart, they were Restorationists, in the above meaning of the word.
And that meaning is clearly at variance with Matthew 28, as said elsewhere.
Now, the reason Protestants backed down from Restorationism very quickly is, the Catholics pointed out the absurdity and they needed to admit it. Any Lutheran, Calvinist or Anglican today is heir of the admission made in the debates from back then that pure Restorationism is wrong.
So, mainstream Protestantism became inconsistently Restorationist. Catholicism remained consistently, I will not say "anti-restorationist", because that is not the substance, only the comparison, but I will say it remained consistently "Continuationist". The Church of God which was present in Jerusalem when St Stephen was martyred is exactly the same which was present in many places in 1400 and some fewer ones in Europe due to Reformation, but more ones overseas, thanks to Columbus and Cortez and a few more, in 1600 and which required you to participate in the liturgy of August 15.
What is the other thing which mainstream Protestantism was also inconsistently?
The other thing is "Ecclesio-Imperfectionist". Admitting a position of the Church presented as obligatory can in fact be all the time and later also recognised as being damnable. However, for this to be consistent, you need to admit you must be in a Church even if it has a damnable doctrine. But for this to be consistent, you need to say the Reformation was as such a mistake - obviously not one making it wrong to be Lutheran, since the damnable doctrine of the Reformation being necessary did not disoblige people in Lutheran countries from being in a Church.
Since this, the doctrine of "Ecclesio-Imperfectionism"°° has been more purely distilled in the originally Protestant movement of Ecumenism. It is also apparent in the changes due to Vatican II (which is one reason for a Catholic to stand apart from that establishment, and probably also the council texts as such). In other words, the largest "Ecclesio-Imperfectionist" confession in our days is Novus Ordo Catholicism. It is not consistently Continuationist, though many even Novus Ordo worshipping Catholics are very Continuationist. Why? Because, if you agree with "Pope Francis" on matrimonial validity, you disagree with centuries of Church discipline. And you consider that as an imperfection of those centuries without any as yet psychology from Freud and his ilk. And if you agree with the earlier centuries, you consider "Pope Francis" and his Encyclical Amoris Laetitia are after all a clear imperfection, but also not so much of an imperfection as to make discommunion with them necessary.
The doctrine common to Restorationism and Continuationism is, heresy is worse than schism. The opposite doctrine is that of Ecclesio-Imperfectionism, schism is worse than heresy. Isolation from other Christians is worse than error. No, it is not. But Ecclesio-Imperfectionists say it is.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Sts Vital, Revocate and Fortunate
Martyrs of Smyrna
PS, quoting once more the article I respond to:
The second, and far more destructive, result of restorationist philosophy is that it denies God’s ability, or willingness, to preserve the faith “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), rejects His sovereignty over His people, and disavows His plan to bring to pass His will without fail, despite attempts by Satan and his minions to derail it. God did not send His Son to die on the cross for the sins of His people only to allow those same people to lapse into apostasy and languish there for 1800 years.
Exactly why I am no longer a Protestant./HGL
* The notion of King would normally include Presidents of the US, even if they are Kings only for 4 years at a time. That they are elected has no bearing, since "king" is not tied to the dynastic principle. Swedish Kings were elected in Westrogothia and could even be deposed by Westrogothia. Even if that was a long time ago - when all Christians were still Geocentric and Young Earth Creationists. ** And as Our Lady was patron saint of Sweden like so many other kingdoms, national feast day of Sweden. (När Nordens Drott blef Jesus Christ, du Nordens Drottning blef förvisst ...) *** Putting it in italics, since not one of the Roman Catholic Church. I think a Catholic liturgic text would be referring to Her as Mother of God. The enumeration of memories for August 15 begins with Assumptio sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae. ° If last August 15 I did not go to Church it is because in Paris no Church is in Communion with Pope Michael. Many are in Communion with Antipope "Francis". °° My coinage ad hoc, not sure if there already is a word for it.