At what point do we not consider certain Protestant churches as legitimate?

[guanophore]

No, not really. The Bible is the inerrant word of God, yes?

The Bible was written by God using men. To hear what appears to be an earthly organization claiming credit for God’s work is troublesome.

It would be, if it were, in fact an 'earthly organization". However, it is not, so no trouble!

The Church is the Holy Bride of Christ, born from the blood and water flowing from His side on the cross. She was formed on Pentecost, by the HS, and the HS is her Soul, as Christ is her Head. The Church is a divine institution with human members. The human members who were inspired to write the NT were Catholic, and the book is Catholic, and it is a product of the Catholic Church. This is not pride, just facts.

 

[someguy14]

Do we consider all of the members of these churches as real Christians?

Let God do His job.

 

[guanophore]

Let God do His job.

Definitely. But part of God doing His job is His people teaching the Truth. The Aposltes taugth that we are added to His Church through baptism, which is why all validly baptized persons are considered members of His One Body, the Church.

Protestant ecclesial communities are, by definition, separated from the One Faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles. They are all lacking in fullness of the Truth, some more than others. None of them are in unity with the successor of Peter, which is the basis of being “Protestant”. But there are also other marks of the Church that are missing to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[someguy14]

Definitely. But part of God doing His job is His people teaching the Truth. The Aposltes taugth that we are added to His Church through baptism, which is why all validly baptized persons are considered members of His One Body, the Church.

Protestant ecclesial communities are, by definition, separated from the One Faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles. They are all lacking in fullness of the Truth, some more than others. None of them are in unity with the successor of Peter, which is the basis of being “Protestant”. But there are also other marks of the Church that are missing to a greater or lesser degree.

God is the only faith. Believe this.

 

[Erich]

God is the only faith. Believe this.

Please answer the following questions:

Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?

Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?

Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?

Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?

Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?

 

[Roy5]

Just a simple answer.

All legitimate Christian organizations should be regarded as Christian. This includes most Protestants, though there may be few scams when it comes to a smattering of  storefront and other such groups. Then there are those who are not really Protestant, like the Mormons, and certain extremely hostile groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses. The word Protestant is used so broadly that it's not easy to know precisely where Protestantism ends and certain other self-proclaimed Christians begin. 

 If they are wrong, I personally would let God do the judging. Frankly, I don't believe we are judged by our doctrines or such 'works' as saying so many rosaries or faithful attendance at mass. As we read in Matt. 25:31ff, God will weigh how we expressed love for others - feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, etc. That is the essence of true discipleship, and not dogmas and liturgies.  

 One serious weakness of traditional Catholicism is its pious lack of humility. It can exude an air of superiority - 'we alone are the one true church'. The one true church has nothing to do with our religious labels but has everything to do with our hearts, Re-read the Sermon on the Mount, I Cor. 13:13, and I John 4 (the epistle, not the gospel).verses 7-23.

  God bless our brothers and sisters of every creed, color, culture and country. Religion should be a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Contarini]

Just a simple answer.

All legitimate Christian organizations should be regarded as Christian.

Er. . . . that is called a tautology. You didn’t actually say anything.

Edwin

 

[Erich]

The one true church has nothing to do with our religious labels but has everything to do with our hearts

So, we can be in complete union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with? there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences, those with different versions of what is and is not truth?

I will answer my own question about whether the Apostles taught different doctrines to different people. The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. From 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity? This whole business of not only ignoring doctrinal differences within Protestantism, but actually justifying them with this essential vs. non-essential garbage is something that has no biblical basis whatsoever.

 

[Contarini]

No, not really. The Bible is the inerrant word of God, yes?

The Bible was written by God using men. To hear what appears to be an earthly organization claiming credit for God’s work is troublesome.

Why do you conclude that the Church is an “earthly organization” in a way that the Bible is not an “earthly book”?

You and I probably have somewhat different views of Biblical inspiration, but the point is that we accept the Bible as divinely inspired because the Church says it is. Since the same Church has historically made very strong claims for itself, it seems to me that Protestants have a pretty desperate scramble to do in order to explain why they dismiss those claims while uncritically accepting the historic Church’s judgment on the canon.

Note that I am not arguing that it is logically problematic to have a “fallible collection of infallible books,” or that an authoritative witness must have equal authority with that to which it witnesses. These are in my opinion flawed and self-refuting arguments often made by Catholic apologists.

Rather, I’m making an a posteriori, probabilistic argument. If the Church is just an “earthly organization” and has gotten a lot of stuff wrong, then shouldn’t modern Protestants be a lot more bothered than they are by the conclusions most Biblical scholars have reached about the Bible? Just to take one obvious example–most scholars think 2 Peter was probably not by Peter. If you read the case for Petrine authorship made by conservative scholars (a case I take seriously), it amounts to nothing more than a case for the possibility of Petrine authorship. (Of course, one can accept 2 Peter as canonical even if one thinks that all or part of it was not by Peter. But again, there is no reason to do this apart from the tradition of the Church–if mainstream scholarship is correct, 2 Peter, or at least parts of it, has/have roughly the same relationship to the original apostolic witness that the Epistle of Barnabas does.)

Edwin

 

[someguy14]

Please answer the following questions:

Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?

Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?

Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?

Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?

Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[someguy14]

Definitely. But part of God doing His job is His people teaching the Truth. The Aposltes taugth that we are added to His Church through baptism, which is why all validly baptized persons are considered members of His One Body, the Church.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.

Would you, guanophore, consider the apostle John, Christian(follower of Christ) or catholic?

If you, guanophore, consider “catholisism” to be christian, than you can’t be against the apostle John, a true follower of Christ. That being said, you can’t be against any Christian(follower of Christ), unless your also against Christ himself.

 

[mwok]

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.

Would you, guanophore, consider the apostle John, Christian(follower of Christ) or catholic?

If you, guanophore, consider “catholisism” to be christian, than you can’t be against the apostle John, a true follower of Christ. That being said, you can’t be against any Christian(follower of Christ), unless your also against Christ himself.

Christian and Catholic are one and the same.

 

[Phyllo]

I’m curious, who says that? I mean, besides you.

I don’t read this thread too often because it has become circular. I thought I would answer your question.

One, holy catholic and apostolic church is in the Catholic creed. I would think that all Catholics should confess that the Catholic church is the one true church founded by Jesus.
I used a quote from Matt. 16:18 from the JB it reads: So I now say to you: you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.

Notice that Jesus says MY church. Church being singular. I believe that Peter was the first visible head of the church and the apostles the first priests. I also believe that any church that does not have the Pope as its head and does not believe in apostolic succession is not the true church.

Any church that is founded by a human being and not by Jesus the God/Man , in my opinion,is a heretical church. And there are thousands of them.

I am not a theologian, I am not an authority on the Catholic Church but this is what I STRONGLY BELEIVE. So take it for what it is worth.

If all churches claim to be led by the Holy Spirit they would all believe as one and that one would be the Holy Catholic church. I don’t think that Jesus is happy with his true church being splintered. Again just my thoughts.

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

I did a search on “judgment seat” and found two verses:
RO 14:10 “But why do you judge your brother? or why do you despise your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”

2 CO 5:10 " For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may be recompensed for the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad."
Considering the above, why does this debate always come back? Or will it do any one any good to stand before the judgment seat and say, “I belonged to the right body?”

Can one take MT 3:9 when John the Baptist said, " And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

If being among the chosen people was of no benefit how then is belonging to the chosen church any different?

In my mind I go back to 2 CO 5:10 because about 30 years ago immediately after a nearly fatal car wreck in which I’d gotten a concussion, at that time I stood alone before Him then as I believe I will stand alone when it is my time to die. I believe then that in giving an account of my life it will only matter who I served. As to whence and were I came from – I will leave to His judgment.

 

[guanophore]

I did a search on "judgment seat" and found two verses:

RO 14:10 “But why do you judge your brother? or why do you despise your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”

2 CO 5:10 " For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may be recompensed for the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad."
Considering the above, why does this debate always come back? Or will it do any one any good to stand before the judgment seat and say, "I belonged to the right body?"/

It will not do any good if the person has been baptized into Christ, then spurned the blood that bought him, and fallen back into a life of sin.

The reason the Apostles’ taught that there is not salvation outside the Catholic Church is because they understood that Jesus only has ONE BODY. They understood that there is no salvation under heaven by any other name, as all who are saved are saved through His death on the cross. All who are united to Him as Head become united to His One Body, the Church. It is through the Church that God has chosen to bring all souls into heaven. So, to the extent that a saved person is a member of His One Body, the Church, it very much makes a difference if one “belongs to the right body”.

Can one take MT 3:9 when John the Baptist said, " And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

If being among the chosen people was of no benefit how then is belonging to the chosen church any different?

You make a good point. Persons who appear to be visible members of His One Body, the Church, will not necessarily be saved. Sin still separates people from God. The fact that they are baptized into Christ is not sufficient. They must become Holy, as He is Holy. A baptized person can still fail to benefit.

In my mind I go back to 2 CO 5:10 because about 30 years ago immediately after a nearly fatal car wreck in which I’d gotten a concussion, at that time I stood alone before Him then as I believe I will stand alone when it is my time to die. I believe then that in giving an account of my life it will only matter who I served. As to whence and were I came from – I will leave to His judgment.

If a person knows that He has only One Body, yet refuses to be part of that One Body here on earth, then one will face this grave and eternal mistake at the judgement.

 

[CopticChristian]

John 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.

Would you, guanophore, consider the apostle John, Christian(follower of Christ) or catholic?

If you, guanophore, consider “catholisism” to be christian, than you can’t be against the apostle John, a true follower of Christ. That being said, you can’t be against any Christian(follower of Christ), unless your also against Christ himself./QUOTE]

My dear Typho or perhaps I might say My dear Boso,

Is Catholicism Christian. Yes it is the Christian Church founded by Christ. All who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are members of the Church.

John is a true follower of Christ.

I would ask you, Christians that follows Christ as defined by what? This is where you stumble. Jehovah Witness, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals say they follow Christ and John…now what do we do?

You have set your self up with a definition that leaves open the door to anyone that says they follow Christ is Christian. You can do that if you want to. I cannot do that.

True, being baptized is no guarantee…but don’t you know for as many of you that have been baptized into his death have been baptized into his life…see what love the Father has that he calls us children of God and so we are. Not all children follow properly. Judas, the Prodigal Son, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Tertullian, Fr. Corapi and others go astray. I pray for them and look at our purpose, to be predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son.

 

[guanophore]

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.

This is a good example of taking Scripture out of context. Jesus made this promise to His fledgling Church. The Church has the promise of the HS - that she will be led into all Truth. When people depart from the Church founded by Christ, they promise no longer applies to them. I is not given to individuals that they may create their own doctrines according to their own perceptions. It is given to preserve the One Faith delivered to the Church once for all. They are the doctrines of Jesus Christ, not those invented in a reformation 1500 years after the fact.

Would you, guanophore, consider the apostle John, Christian(follower of Christ) or catholic?

This is a false dichotomy. True followers of Christ are Catholic, because Catholicism embodies the fullness of Jesus’ teaching.

Those who are validly baptized and strive to follow what they have learned about Christ, though it is deficient, still can be called Christians, though they are poorly catechized and sometimes misled by erroneous ideas such as that represented in the opening line of your post.

All the Apostles are Catholic.

If you, guanophore, consider "catholisism" to be christian, than you can't be against the apostle John, a true follower of Christ. That being said, you can't be against any Christian(follower of Christ), unless your also against Christ himself.

This is certainly true, and has been noted, the salient point is, how is "follower of Christ defined. New definitions have been created throughout history. Catholics are bound to receive the definiition of the Apostles, handed down to us through the Apostolic Succession, and infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

No, not really. The Bible is the inerrant word of God, yes?

The Bible was written by God using men. To hear what appears to be an earthly organization claiming credit for God’s work is troublesome.

How is that any more troublesome than Paul claiming to be able to save?

If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and may save some of them—Romans 11:14

Of course, Catholics understand that when St. Paul states that he desires to “save some of them” he only does it through his participation in Jesus’ redemption.

And I think you understand it that way, too, no?

Similarly, you ought to be able to understand that when this “earthly organization” claims to have discerned the canon of Scripture, it is only through its participation in the redemptive act of Christ.