J
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Memaw
Guest
I have found some disagree on important beliefs even when they belong to the same denomination. Many go from one denomination to another, changing when they don’t agree with what the preacher says. And they think nothing of it. There doesn’t seem to be a strong unity among them. Seems to me the preachers are pretty much on their own as to what they teach and how they interpret the Bible.I think you get lost in the names. Take two mainstream protestants and you will as likely as not find there is very little difference.
Christ prayed that ALL be ONE in HIM as HE is ONE with the FATHER. One Faith, One Church. He also promised HE would be with HIS Church till the end of time and it would never teach error. He would send the Holy Spirit to protect it. HIS Church is still here, 2,000 years later, the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church, teaching the same TRUTHS that Jesus taught. Read the writings of the Early Church Fathers and see for yourself. God Bless, Memaw
P
psychiatrist
Guest
No thinking person becomes a protestant by choice.
Anyone who does an intellectually honest study of the Bible and the early Church will become Catholic.
The modern-day Evangelical theology is so flawed. I chuckle at some of the stuff they believe in, like the garbage theology of the “rapture.”
Modern-day Evangelicalism is completely unbiblical.
Anyone who does an intellectually honest study of the Bible and the early Church will become Catholic.
The modern-day Evangelical theology is so flawed. I chuckle at some of the stuff they believe in, like the garbage theology of the “rapture.”
Modern-day Evangelicalism is completely unbiblical.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Or criticizing the Catholic Church when we use the name Holy Trinity to simply saying Three Persons in One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
N
Nicea325
Guest
A long history of unity around error? In reference to what?You are right that division is nothing to be proud about. A long history of unity around error is also nothing proud about. When we see all the sin that is so evident in Christendom it is rather embarassing.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Here we go again…some times I would prefer to direct others to documented events…The Vatican has the largest library in the world, there are many documents open to the public that would exonerate itself, but doesn’t. It doesn’t because it knows it will do no good unless a person is seeking the truth.
That is what the Jewish people found out in www.pavetheway.org.
That is what the Jewish people found out in www.pavetheway.org.
N
Nicea325
Guest
*One thing is absolutely clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence - the Holy Spirit is NOT the author of confusion and divisions. Truth does not divide against itself. The legion of Protestant denominations PROVES that denominalization is NOT a fruit of the Holy Spirit *Why are you so suspicious and untrusting of The Church Radical?
You are making assumptions that the Church made error and was corrupted. This is not a natural thought that one would have when first encountering a 2,000 year old religion that has outlived all its enemies. Who put the “novel” idea into your head that the church ever erred and is teaching as you like to say “novelties”?
One thing is absolutely clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence - the Holy Spirit is NOT the author of confusion and divisions. Truth does not divide against itself. The legion of Protestant denominations PROVES that denominalization is NOT a fruit of the Holy Spirit but rather a work of the father of all deceit and lies - Satan. Ask yourself where did denominalization first start? You will see that there were factions from the very beginning apostolic era but these were NOT apostolic in nature. The only disputes among the apostles where on the decision to offer up Christianity to both Jew and Gentile and PETER was the ONE who made the first authoritative decision when HE COMMANDED that that Cornelius be baptised. Paul when he met with stiff rejection of the Judising Jews in his travels had to return to Rome to ask Peter what was he to tell them - “is one saved by faith in Jesus” or by “adherence to the Jewish laws and practices” as the Christian-Jews insisted. It is those groups who “taught a different gospel than had been handed down to them” from NON APOSTOLIC SOURCES whom were found worthy of a curse by St. Paul (Gal 1.9). There is very little surviving apostolic teaching to be found in the Protestant Churches. The pattern of error is well establised in the manufactured modern-day Protestant suspicion that you carry forward here into these forums.
You are chasing a canard - there is no legal standard to be found that will give you 100% iron clad certain forensic evidence that what the Catholic Church teaches is the identical faith that was taught in apostolic times. We are teaching the same faith but it is a much more intellectually and spiritually enlightened faith than the average Christian of the day knew. This is in fact EXACTLY what Jesus promised in sending the Holy Spirit. PAUL WAS A FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT - HE REVEALED AFTER JESUS’ RESURRECTION the ideas of Jesus as new Adam - and subsequent to Paul our Saints have made the logical connection to Mary as new Eve. Paul spoke often of the Church - there is no way a Protestant can seperate The Church from Jesus or create false “invisible churches”. The notion of a vibrantly interacting Christian Community was integral with Christianity from the very beginning. The Jews were “the chosen people” and NOT a chosen individuals. There is no concept of Jesus as one’s personal Lord and saviour - there is only a notion of God’s Kingdom and THE LORD of that Kingdom. There is no salvation outside of the people of God - no one separates Church from Jesus.
You can’t reason your way into salvation nor gain any grace by speculation and mistrust. Its’ more than a roulette bet on 1 of 35,000 Protestant denominations. Consider the Church first to be true rather than false - and then go see if you can find a reason for it not to be the one True Apostolic Faith.
What Protestant Church claims to be apostolic???
NONE.
QED: Protestantism is only on the very extreme periphery of Christianity and is so alien to what the early Church taught that they are living in a very precarious and deficient faith. Ignorance may mitigate culpability - but ignorance imparts NO GRACE. Think about that since only by GRACE is anyone able to ascend to heaven. No one gained heaven by a grace of ignorance.
James
I agree with the above statement. The Holy Spirit is not teaching conflicting beliefs which runs wild among Fundamentalism,Protestanism,Evangelicism,etc. Enough is enough! How can God be the author of such chaos and divisions?
**What Protestant Church claims to be apostolic???
NONE.**
None since all are new to historical Christinaity.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Radical:
No monkies here. The assumption that the CC can not err and the assumption that the ECFs could not introduce novelty are not part a proper historical approach.
That is totally incorrect. It is an approach of history. Why? Because you evidently believe they introduced ‘novelties’. If you are making the claim/charge or argument the ECF did introduce novelties or entertained them, burden is on you to support it with empirical evidence. Your biased opinions are not valid sources to support such a charge.
**They are assumptions of a faith. **
Assumptions of faith? How interesting.
**Whatever is produced by working from those two assumptions is not “history”, but would be better called propaganda (if someone tries to pass it off as history) or a statement of faith (if it is kept in its proper domain). **
Again,your burden to prove those ‘two’ assumptions.
No monkies here. The assumption that the CC can not err and the assumption that the ECFs could not introduce novelty are not part a proper historical approach.
That is totally incorrect. It is an approach of history. Why? Because you evidently believe they introduced ‘novelties’. If you are making the claim/charge or argument the ECF did introduce novelties or entertained them, burden is on you to support it with empirical evidence. Your biased opinions are not valid sources to support such a charge.
**They are assumptions of a faith. **
Assumptions of faith? How interesting.
**Whatever is produced by working from those two assumptions is not “history”, but would be better called propaganda (if someone tries to pass it off as history) or a statement of faith (if it is kept in its proper domain). **
Again,your burden to prove those ‘two’ assumptions.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
I know the rabbit trails are tempting folks. But let’s stay on topic, stick to the timeline, and the beliefs of the Church in the first hundred years.
M
Memaw
Guest
Which two?? and what about all the others?, God Bless, MemawI think you get lost in the names. Take two mainstream protestants and you will as likely as not find there is very little difference.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Link doesn’t work for me.Here we go again…some times I would prefer to direct others to documented events…The Vatican has the largest library in the world, there are many documents open to the public that would exonerate itself, but doesn’t. It doesn’t because it knows it will do no good unless a person is seeking the truth.
That is what the Jewish people found out in www.pavetheway.org.
M
Memaw
Guest
Try a search on pavethewayfoundation, God BlessLink doesn’t work for me.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Or this,
They have the complete documents of the Catholic Church during World War II.
Code:
[www.ptwf.org](www.ptwf.org)
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
All sorts of reasons, country of origin of the congregation, language, color. Oftentimes the religious issues are very minor and the two churches welcome one another’s members openly and even share, if need be, clergy. ( ELCA, United Methodists, Presbyterian, Reformed, Episcopal) What isn’t there is a sense that unity and conformity are one in the same.If there is ‘little’ difference as you state,then why go and start entirely different churches? If Lutherans differ very little from Baptists,then why are they two entire separate churches?
N
nhylan
Guest
**What Protestant Church claims to be apostolic???
NONE.***
None since all are new to historical Christinaity.
You’re clearly zealous beyond the ability to reason. The Anglican Church considers itself apostolic. Do some research before you just spout ignorant banter.
N
nhylan
Guest
A simple timeline does indeed prove that the early church was catholic. What this thread and its OP do not prove (since the obvious point of the thread is to discredit ALL protestant denominations) is that the reasons which the fathers of the reformation broke away from the catholic church was that they felt that it was no longer the same church. If this wasn’t the case why the need to break away?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
First, the point is not to ‘discredit’ protestant denominations.A simple timeline does indeed prove that the early church was catholic. What this thread and its OP do not prove (since the obvious point of the thread is to discredit ALL protestant denominations) is that the reasons which the fathers of the reformation broke away from the catholic church was that they felt that it was no longer the same church. If this wasn’t the case why the need to break away?
Second, there are a lot of reasons that your ‘fathers’ broke away, and most of them (start with Luther) have absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of the Church itself (see Henry VIII) but rather came about because of either secular ‘gain’, NATIONALISM, or power. Calvin was the only one of the “fathers” who promoted a church, and even he originally felt the ‘need’ not because he felt that the Catholic Church was ‘no longer the real church’ but in retaliation for a specific Catholic authority refusing to grant his family specific standing and property.
Check your historical facts. Anticlericalism is not rooted in ‘doctrinal error’ but in a desire for power and worldly gain.
The ‘doctrinal issues’ came about ‘later’ in an attempt to justify the spoilings and the grabbing.
N
nhylan
Guest
I will give you that, however would you also agree that the Catholic Church at the time had invested itself in a wide range of political chicanery with the sole goal of political power and “pride?” If so I fail to see how these early protestant church fathers are any different in this regard to the Catholic Church they left. At least admit that the RCC at that time was also rooted in a desire for worldy gain and power.First, the point is not to ‘discredit’ protestant denominations.
Second, there are a lot of reasons that your ‘fathers’ broke away, and most of them (start with Luther) have absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of the Church itself (see Henry VIII) but rather came about because of either secular ‘gain’, NATIONALISM, or power. Calvin was the only one of the “fathers” who promoted a church, and even he originally felt the ‘need’ not because he felt that the Catholic Church was ‘no longer the real church’ but in retaliation for a specific Catholic authority refusing to grant his family specific standing and property.
Check your historical facts. Anticlericalism is not rooted in ‘doctrinal error’ but in a desire for power and worldly gain.
The ‘doctrinal issues’ came about ‘later’ in an attempt to justify the spoilings and the grabbing.
and while the actual intent of OP may not have been to discredit protestantism (which I still doubt, you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig) there are some incredibly dismissive comments in this thread about Protestantism in general. I am continually amazed by the ability of many of these boards to generalize about Protestants. Can people not get their heads around the idea that Christianity is divided by different beliefs in minutia of faith in Jesus? Perhaps people are simply not willing to look at hard questions, they would rather everything be black and white. That would certainly explain the recent rallying cry of Benedict against relativism in any form.
P
paul_c
Guest
Don’t mistake the motivations of some men within the church with the motivation of the Church as a whole. While some men in the Catholic church clearly became corrupted by worldly things, the Church as a whole maintained its true purpose which is to help people get to heaven through teaching the Apostolic faith and administering the sacraments.I will give you that, however would you also agree that the Catholic Church at the time had invested itself in a wide range of political chicanery with the sole goal of political power and “pride?” If so I fail to see how these early protestant church fathers are any different in this regard to the Catholic Church they left. At least admit that the RCC at that time was also rooted in a desire for worldy gain and power.
N
nhylan
Guest
I’m sure there we many who did as you say however when a church’s leadership structure largely corrupt for considerable periods of time I would say that that qualifies as the Church. You could certainly claim that the people in the church are the Church but historically as an entity the church isn’t known for its people it is defined by its leaders.Don’t mistake the motivations of some men within the church with the motivation of the Church as a whole. While some men in the Catholic church clearly became corrupted by worldly things, the Church as a whole maintained its true purpose which is to help people get to heaven through teaching the Apostolic faith and administering the sacraments.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.