There has always been and always will be movement from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism, and from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism. Many so-called Protestant churches have left the solas of the Protestant Reformation and have gone liberal and left the truth of the Scriptures. Even though, there appears to be a greater movement from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism in recent times…there is still a much greater number leaving the Roman Catholic Church for biblical Christianity.
It really doesn’t matter who leaves and who comes to a religous community. What matters is the truth as God reveals His authorative truth in the Scriptures alone to those who are being saved.It appears you did not go to the website and listen to the testimonies because these people left Protestantism for Orthodoxy not Catholicism.There has always been and always will be movement from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism, and from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism. Many so-called Protestant churches have left the solas of the Protestant Reformation and have gone liberal and left the truth of the Scriptures. Even though, there appears to be a greater movement from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism in recent times…there is still a much greater number leaving the Roman Catholic Church for biblical Christianity.
Catholicism is not biblical Christianity? You have learned to believe and defend a theological system. Others have derived their own theological systems from their “study” of the Scriptures. Arminians and Calvinists point to the same Bible and arrive at different conclusions.
Historical exegesis is not biblical exegesis. Do you consider recorded church history to be in par with Holy Scripture as divine revelation from above?
In a sense, yes. Calvin or anyone else sitting on a log and coming up with his own hermeneutic by using the Bible in a vacuum is dangerous. Just this approach has given Christendom a staggering array of competing interpretations. Doctrine derived strictly from “sola scriptura” is like a nuclear reaction outside of any containment structure. It is dangerous and unpredictable. The historical interpretation of the Church lends some “containment” to all of this hermeneutical chaos.
No. But I would also say that your question is comparing oranges and apples.
I read a much better history that said he was actually on the toliet - makes more sense if you think about it
Hey now, all great ideas come either on the toilet or in the shower.I read a much better history that said he was actually on the toliet - makes more sense if you think about it
And he did seem to be rather obsessed with all thigs to do with the bottom - if his language and descriptive terms is anything to go by - makes you wonder huh?
Fair point
Your title asks “why”?
You do realize, don’t you, that Christians didn’t agree on which books made up the New Testament until the 4th century? (Actually I’m pretty sure you do, since it’s been mentioned on this forum a number of times.)
The Reformation is part of God’s plan. If not, why did he allow his church to split?
The NT are the words of Christ and his apostles. You do not have anything else from Christ or his apostles. You simply do not. You think you follow traditions that may have come from them but none of the earliest documents …NONE…offer any substantial proof of further teachings from Christ or Paul. I have their words just like you do in the Bible. I believe their words. I believe that Peter would be smart enough to teach me about venerating images, or any of the Marian dogmas if they were true. I trust God alone. Not some twisted version of the telephone game that claims 400 years later that she was assumed. Says who? Clement nope. Ignatius nope. Irenaeus. Nope. ANYONE? Nope.
The Reformation is part of God’s plan. If not, why did he allow his church to split?
Because men and women have free will. god didn’t STOP his church from splitting, but he has prevented the gates of hell from porevailing against it. As I look at it now, the Catholic Church has been under relentless attack and assault for the past 500 years, and the gates of hell have still not prevailed. But what started as ONE split from the church has now spawned into tens of thousands of splinters - but the catholic church is STILL there, and still prevails. I find that intersting from a faith point of view.
Besides there have always been small dissenting groups, and the BIble clearly teaches that the majority is wrong. Narrow is the path that leads to everlasting life.
**I’d be grateful for the referrence so I can look it up. I don’t know my Bible well enough yet**
It fails to fully grasp that despite a loving God, 70 percent of the world is not Christian.
Does that make sense?
To me it makes perfect sense. Population control, politics, wars, ancient pagan traditions, Islamic countries impossible for the christian message to get into … all adds up so quite a sensible picture to me.
For tens of thousands of years, there was no Christian truth. None nada. Zip.
Does that make sense? Your 1500 years is a drop in the bucket compared to how long humans have been on this planet. It is a drop in the bucket for overall existence of any kind. 1500 years…please…like that is a big deal…
The last 500 years or so ARE a big deal to a former agnostic like me looking for the truth.
Do I understand you rightly then, that it is your view that the catholics in the catholic church who refused to follow Luther, Calvin, et al exercised a combination of free will to ignore them, and God’s soveriogn power to damn them
