A Historical Dare to Protestants

[MrS]

The word church is not in the bible it has been translated erroneously thus the misconception Cahtolics have.

Is that what your “faith community” teaches you? Or do you follow your own 3-times quoted verse that says no one will teach you?

.

 

[Graubo3]

The word church is not in the bible it has been translated erroneously thus the misconception Cahtolics have.

Careful playing that card. “Trinity” anyone? Buehler?

I’m curious, could this erroneous translation shatter Christendom? And why is this error allowed to be perpetuated?

Peace, Graubo

 

[Tomster]

The word church is not in the bible it has been translated erroneously thus the misconception Cahtolics have.

" . . . so that, if I am slow in coming, thou mayest be in no doubt over the conduct that is expected of thee in God’s household. By that I mean the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation upon which the truth rests." - 1 Timothy 3:15.

Please interpret, if you will.

 

[LutheranDK]

To all those who deny that the “Roman Catholic Church” (and/or Eastern Orthodox) is the Church founded by Christ, then I have a little dare for you. Prove from Scripture and history that your denomination is the one founded by Christ.

I say use ‘history’ because Scripture is vague enough that anyone, even us evil old Papists (or those in the process of converting to Papism), could claim that their doctrines match Scripture (after all, don’t most of those tens of thousands of Protestant denominations claim that they are each based on Scripture).

For me, it was history that won me over to the Catholic Church. No other group (save the Eastern Orthodox) can trace their history as far as back as the Catholic Church. That is a key point, because unless you can somehow connect your denomination chronologically to the Apostles, then you are claiming that there was a period of time where there was no ‘true Church’ and this sort of violates that whole gates of Hell prevailing against the Church thingy. Yeah, not good.

So, fire away.

To claim that the RC church is the church founded by Jesus is quite simply not true. The church structure that can date its historical roots back the furthest is probably the Aramaic-speaking church in Jerusalem, so if you’re only interested in history, that’s where you need to go.
Yes, the Reformation came from the RC church, and so, I’m not going to try to say that the Lutheran churches as organizations predates the RC church. That would be foolishness, and that is not what I claim.

What I DO claim, however, is basically this:

1: The measure of a “true church” is not it’s organization, not even its history. It is its theology. Are its teachings in accordance with Scripture? In my view, the gates of Hell did overcome the RC church during certain periods in time, which led to unbiblical doctrines and abuse of the offices of the church.

2: I do not consider any one denomination (and yes, I claim the RC church as a Christian denomination. Don’t derail this thread by trying to start an argument over that…) to be the Church Catholic (“kat holikos” = “for all” = “universal”), which is what Jesus spoke of in Matt 16.The Church Catholic is the spiritual unity between ALL believers - regardless of denominations.

 

[christian77]

Historic Protestantism tend to embrace that Christians were chosen before the foundation of the world to be believers in Christ (part of the body of Christ). Therefore, historically… Protestants go back much further than the Catholic claim of 2, 000 years since our church began before the foundations of the world. I guess the Scripture proof is Ephesians chapters 1 and 2. That’a something to think about. A day is a thousand years to God, so your exclusive Catholic Church is only 2 days old, and the true church is eternal in time.

 

[Tomster]

To claim that the RC church is the church founded by Jesus is quite simply not true. The church structure that can date its historical roots back the furthest is probably the Aramaic-speaking church in Jerusalem, so if you’re only interested in history, that’s where you need to go.
Yes, the Reformation came from the RC church, and so, I’m not going to try to say that the Lutheran churches as organizations predates the RC church. That would be foolishness, and that is not what I claim.

What I DO claim, however, is basically this:

1: The measure of a “true church” is not it’s organization, not even its history. It is its theology. Are its teachings in accordance with Scripture? In my view, the gates of Hell did overcome the RC church during certain periods in time, which led to unbiblical doctrines and abuse of the offices of the church.

2: I do not consider any one denomination (and yes, I claim the RC church as a Christian denomination. Don’t derail this thread by trying to start an argument over that…) to be the Church Catholic (“kat holikos” = “for all” = “universal”), which is what Jesus spoke of in Matt 16.The Church Catholic is the spiritual unity between ALL believers - regardless of denominations.

I think you are having a problem with the visible and invisible elements of the Church. Additionally, some of your Protestant brethren would have a problem with the idea that Christ founded a Church. How would Protestant theology reconcile your view with theirs?

 

[With_Questions]

Before you can make that challenge, you have to disprove from Scriptures such that Christ did not establish the one Church and Peter was not the first Pope. Failing that, you have nothing to stand on.

You are the one that is claiming “One True Church” status for yourself. I do not have the “burden of proof” if you are the one making the claim.

 

[With_Questions]

ah, it the entire NT enough for you?
Over and over it is repeated that Jesus gave us The Church. He did not give a demonation. His Church, The Holy Catholic Church, where He is the head and we are the body.

You are the one that is defining “Church” to be “Your denomination”.

I have absolutely no reason to accept your definition.

 

[Tomster]

Historic Protestantism tend to embrace that Christians were chosen before the foundation of the world to be believers in Christ (part of the body of Christ). Therefore, historically… Protestants go back much further than the Catholic claim of 2, 000 years since our church began before the foundations of the world. I guess the Scripture proof is Ephesians chapters 1 and 2. That’a something to think about. A day is a thousand years to God, so your exclusive Catholic Church is only 2 days old, and the true church is eternal in time.

What about those who were not chosen to be Christians “before the foundation of the world?” I thought that God wills all men to saved.

 

[With_Questions]

Not an assumption at all…

“… upon this rock I will build my church…”

I = Christ. He did it. Any other group, regardless of their good intentions, was started by a man… or woman. Thus not the Truth.

My = His possession. Since Truth is unchangeable, any other group which adds, detracts, or changes that which was taught from the beginning… is not the Truth

Church = singular form. Christ uses the word for the first time in the New Testament. No longer is the word temple held in the highest esteem. Only the “group” intended to be of one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism can fully be part of the Church. Thus, all the denominiations that followed are not the Church.

Agreed that the Body of Christ includes all who have Trinitarian Baptism… but rejection of the other principles of Christ’s Church leaves one in the family, perhaps, but living in the back yard outside the house. - The Catholic Church.

The most evident of this is the Orthodox with their rejection of the prime among equals… the Pope.

The next most evident would be the Lutherans, Calvins etc who chose to live outside during the Reformation.

The others, like the Baptists, Pentacostals, Methodists etc are simply more of the many examples of man’s insubordination.

.

If I follow your logic, you start by defining “church” in such a way that it could just as easily work for “all true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ”.

That is until you make a logic leap and assert that the word church really means “My denomination”.

Why should I accept your assertion here?

Just because you say so doesn’t mean it is true.

 

[Tomster]

You are the one that is claiming “One True Church” status for yourself. I do not have the “burden of proof” if you are the one making the claim.

If the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Timothy 3:15, explain why there are so many different Protestant denominations and why do they differ on so many “essentials” as Protestants are fond of saying. Could it be poor theology?

 

[LutheranDK]

I think you are having a problem with the visible and invisible elements of the Church. Additionally, some of your Protestant brethren would have a problem with the idea that Christ founded a Church. How would Protestant theology reconcile your view with theirs?

Well, I don’t think I’m having a problem

I don’t really know how those that disagree with me would reconcile my view with theirs. But that Christ founded a church is not a matter of opinion.
WHAT that church then is, is, however.

 

[With_Questions]

If the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Timothy 3:15, explain why there are so many different Protestant denominations and why do they differ on so many “essentials” as Protestants are fond of saying. Could it be poor theology?

Let us say hypothetically that the ecclesiastical divisions amongst Protestants is not what God designed when He designed the church.

It does not necessarily follow that one and only one denomination is exclusively the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, much less that your denomination is it.

 

[Tomster]

Well, I don’t think I’m having a problem

I don’t really know how those that disagree with me would reconcile my view with theirs. But that Christ founded a church is not a matter of opinion.
WHAT that church then is, is, however.

One of the four marks of the true Chruch is unity. That’s a theological fact. Your inablitiy to reconcile that fact with other Protestants shows that Protestant theology is defective. But then, with no authoritative structure within Protestantism to settle the issue, this is to expected

 

[LutheranDK]

The most evident of this is the Orthodox with their rejection of the prime among equals… the Pope.
.

I know I didn’t relate to the rest of your post. If you ask me to, I will at some point, but that’s not what I’m here to do now.

My point here, is that the Eastern Church has not done what you claim. From my understanding, the Eastern Church would accept a “prima inter pares”-type of papacy. The problem is, that the RC church does not teach prima inter pares. The pope is not equal to the bishops, he is above them in the church hierarchy (and has to be, otherwise said hierarchy would come a’tumblin down like the walls of Jericho)

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Let us say hypothetically that the ecclesiastical divisions amongst Protestants is not what God designed when He designed the church.

It does not necessarily follow that one and only one denomination is exclusively the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, much less that your denomination is it.

Jesus wants us to be one as he and the father are one.

Do you think they have any disagreements as to what is the truth?

Unless there is a single acknowledged truth, there cannot be unity.

 

[christian77]

What about those who were not chosen to be Christians “before the foundation of the world?” I thought that God wills all men to saved.

If God willed all men to be saved, then all mankind would be saved. Does the Catholic Faith believe that mankind’s will is stronger than the will of God? Or, does the Catholic Faith believe in universal salvation? I am interested to hear your answer. Thanks for your posting.

 

[LutheranDK]

One of the four marks of the true Chruch is unity. That’s a theological fact. Your inablitiy to reconcile that fact with other Protestants shows that Protestant theology is defective. But then, with no authoritative structure within Protestantism to settle the issue, this is to expected

sighs

I really thought I had found another of the few on this forum it’s possible to have an intelligent debate with.
Oh well, here we go:

What kind of unity are you talking about? What IS “unity”, and is “unity” always good, even at the expense of truth?
If so, the first Christians should have remained in the synagogues, even when the prayer of condemnation against the Christians entered the service about 80 AD.
They didn’t, because they did not want to sacrifice truth in order to achieve unity.

I’m reaching the end of my rope here. I know there are intelligent RCs outthere - why don’t y’all show yourselves a bit more?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

If God willed all men to be saved, then all mankind would be saved. Does the Catholic Faith believe that mankind’s will is stronger than the will of God? Or, does the Catholic Faith believe in universal salvation? I am interested to hear your answer. Thanks for your posting.

God’s will is that we choose to love him freely.

Love cannot be forced.

God wants us all to love him, but he won’t force us.

This is God’s will.

 

[LutheranDK]

If God willed all men to be saved, then all mankind would be saved. Does the Catholic Faith believe that mankind’s will is stronger than the will of God? Or, does the Catholic Faith believe in universal salvation? I am interested to hear your answer. Thanks for your posting.

Please tell me you’re not OSAS? I’ve read my full share of heresy today, thank you very much.
God wants all to be saved - “for the Bible tells us so”. In a forum where there is very little fact, and many opinions (more or less valid), this is one view that is ACTUALLY factual.