Calling on all Protestants on this forum!

[Scott_Lafrance]

SPOKENWORD:

History is recorded in the Bible. God Bless.

It is? Even St. John said
John 21:25:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

My bible fits in my briefcase, so it is quite a bit smaller than “the world itself”. And that is just in regards to Jesus. It doesn’t take into consideration anything or anyone else. So while I agree that the bible is all true, not all truth is found in the bible.
Romans 2:13-16:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

 

[dennisknapp]

wabrams:

Just look at the other threads regarding Protestants. When a fair share of people on this board have made up their minds that Protestants are wrong and Catholics are right, no matter what the point of view of the Protestants are, why keep explaining yourself? Why keep arguing with a brick wall? If you’re looking for instant gratification, then yeah Protestants are all wrong and we make stuff up as we go. Feel better now? Good!

With regards to some of the other posts on this thread about history, just remember history is always written by the victors. Just think about that.

All I am asking for is evidence, not who is right or wrong on this issue.

I also don’t want this tread to turn into a bashing party. Let’s deal with the issues and not mistreat the people holding them.

And in the early Church those who were writing could not be said to be “victors” in any sense except that they had victory in Christ. They were hunted and persecuted and wrote things down knowing that if discovered could be put to death.

 

[wabrams]

dennisknapp:

And in the early Church those who were writing could not be said to be “victors” in any sense except that they had victory in Christ. They were hunted and persecuted and wrote things down knowing that if discovered could be put to death.

How early is early?

 

[Exporter]

Why do some think they have to learn ancient history in order to get along in today’s world.

Look at medical schools, jet engine mechanic’s schools. Do they have to spend time learning how the Greeks practiced medicine, and the mechanic spending time learning the ancient methods of propulsion?

It especially fruitless for several people of different backgrounds to try to pursuade the other when using their own “interpretations” of 2000 year old history. I do not see anyone using the Jewish historian Josephus.

 

[Shibboleth]

dennisknapp:

These are great references and I would agree. But they are in accordance with what has been held by the historical Church. What I am asking is for evidence of your belief that do not agree with the historical Church, in early Church history.

bookofconcord.org/treatise.html

 

[dennisknapp]

Exporter:

Why do some think they have to learn ancient history in order to get along in today’s world.

Look at medical schools, jet engine mechanic’s schools. Do they have to spend time learning how the Greeks practiced medicine, and the mechanic spending time learning the ancient methods of propulsion?

It especially fruitless for several people of different backgrounds to try to pursuade the other when using their own “interpretations” of 2000 year old history. I do not see anyone using the Jewish historian Josephus.

That is a very Modernistic thing to say.

And, yes it is very important to learn from our past in order to understand our present.

While the modern medical professional is far different than his/her Greek forerunner, medicine had to have a biginning. And this process developed over time and lead us to were we are today. And so with engineering as such.

History is important and should not be overlooked.

 

[JimO]

Shibboleth:

Lutherans do believe in…The True Presence… All of these aspects can be proven to have been held by the Church Fathers.

Maybe I’m mistaken because I am not conversant in the Lutheran faith, but it was my understanding that Lutherans teach Consubstantiation as opposed to Transubstantiation. There is much more than semantics involved in the difference between the two and the early Church Fathers clearly taught Transubstantiation - that the bread and wine becomes, in substance, the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[dennisknapp]

wabrams:

How early is early?

Oh, around 100-300 A.D.

 

[Shibboleth]

JimO:

Maybe I’m mistaken because I am not conversant in the Lutheran faith, but it was my understanding that Lutherans teach Consubstantiation as opposed to Transubstantiation. There is much more than semantics involved in the difference between the two and the early Church Fathers clearly taught Transubstantiation - that the bread and wine becomes, in substance, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Yes, we do and you do accordingly. Some of consubstantiation and substantiation is attempting to explain a miracle in the leading philosophical mindset of the day. Things have changed since then.

Now that we believe that all matter is composed of a single energy in various states the question gets more trivial. Does the molecular structure of the bread and wine change? Perhaps – it may be that the only things that are retained by the bread and wine are the color, flavor, smell, taste, and texture – or it could be that it also retains its molecular appearance as well.

Either way, Lutherans believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

 

[dennisknapp]

bookofconcord.org/treatise.html

This is an interesting document but it is not evidence from the early Church. I could include a link to the Council of Trent but that would not be profitable.

Besides, the Book of Concord is too late to be considered early Christian teaching, even if it does quote some early teachers.

But like I said, I can bring out some later documents that qoute eariler writers, but that would not fit the criteria of this thread.

 

[wabrams]

dennisknapp:

Oh, around 100-300 A.D.

.

So, since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire around 358 AD and there was basically one officially sanctioned church until 1054 AD, that kind of makes the Catholic Church the victors for 700 years, right?

 

[AmyS]

wabrams:

.

So, since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire around 358 AD and there was basically one officially sanctioned church until 1054 AD, that kind of makes the Catholic Church the victors for 700 years, right?

I think Apostolic Succession does…

 

[flameburns623]

dennisknapp:

I am imploring, begging, beseeching any Protestant to provide positive evidence for thier beliefs that are not shared in common with historical Christianity.

Please provide evidence for:

Communion is only symbolic; not salvific.

That baptism is only symbolic; not salvific.

Marian doctrine is a late innovation of the Roman Catholic Church.

That Apostolic Succession was not taught in the early Church.

Apart from the issue of ‘Marian doctrine’, which even the Roman Catholics agree has ‘developed over time’ Anglicans don’t believe any of these things.

 

[dennisknapp]

wabrams:

.

So, since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire around 358 AD and there was basically one officially sanctioned church until 1054 AD, that kind of makes the Catholic Church the victors for 700 years, right?

I think you may be missing the intent of this thread.

All I am asking for is evidence for Protestant beliefs that do not agree with the belief held by the historical Church.

This question is a red-herring and only takes away attention from the issue at hand.

Let’s please deal with the issue at hand.

 

[JimO]

Shibboleth:

Either way, Lutherans believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

Again, I’d like to be clear that there is a very significant difference between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation that transcends the scientific elements of the concepts. Although science could not have addressed the molecular definition of substance 500 or 1,000 or 1,950 years ago, Divine Revelation did not need that understanding to express such a sublime concept that would stand the test of time and the efforts of man to understand the universe. When confronted with the philosophy of Transubstantiation, I find that many people who can’t believe it sound just like the disciples in John 6:60 “This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?”

You state that Lutherans believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, yet we believe that Jesus is the Eucharist. Jesus is present in many places and in many people, but those places and those people do not literally become Christ’s Body and Blood. The few Lutherans that I have had discussions with over the years always want to downplay the difference, because, I believe, that they didn’t want to deal with the implications by admitting that there is a real and substantial difference.

Blessings

 

[SPOKENWORD]

dennisknapp:

What are you trying to say?

This is what I hear:

Assertion+Assertion+Assertion=truth.

What is missing is EVIDENCE.

Here is an assertion for you:

You believe an innovation of the 16th century and so are cut off from the Church Christ established.

And since you provide no evidence for you assertion I will provide none for mine.

Therefore, you are wrong.

So be it.I will let Christ judge me for my ignorance. You take your History and I,ll take my heart and my faith and we will see where it leads us. God Bless.

 

[dennisknapp]

flameburns623:

Apart from the issue of ‘Marian doctrine’, which even the Roman Catholics agree has ‘developed over time’ Anglicans don’t believe any of these things.

While Anglicans do not see them as say an Evangelical does, they do view them differently than Catholics do.

All I want is evidence, from the early Church, for the way these views differ from those of the historical Church.

 

[wabrams]

dennisknapp:

I think you may be missing the intent of this thread.

All I am asking for is evidence for Protestant beliefs that do not agree with the belief held by the historical Church.

This question is a red-herring and only takes away attention from the issue at hand.

Let’s please deal with the issue at hand.

The intent is that you want a Protestant to provide what they see as proof so you can flame. By reading your original post, you already made the claim that us Protestants rely on information that, as you put it, “DID NOT exist.” So by that original post, it seems you are setting a trap of sorts.

 

[dennisknapp]

SPOKENWORD:

So be it.I will let Christ judge me for my ignorance. You take your History and I,ll take my heart and my faith and we will see where it leads us. God Bless.

Again, this is an assertion and a jab.

This statement assumes that all I have is history while you have “heart” and “faith.” This is not true and only avoids the topic at hand.

All I am asking for is evidence, not a personal attack against my faith.

 

[dennisknapp]

wabrams:

The intent is that you want a Protestant to provide what they see as proof so you can flame. By reading your original post, you already made the claim that us Protestants rely on information that, as you put it, “DID NOT exist.” So by that original post, it seems you are setting a trap of sorts.

I am not looking to “flame” or whatever that means…

I am just asking for evidence for your beliefs that do not agree with those held by the historical Church.

If Protestantism is a return or Reform to the truer form of Christianity then there must be some evidence for it, shouldn’t there?

I read all the time about the differences between “Biblical Christiantity” and Roman Catholicism.

Well, if theirs is “Biblical Christianity” then there must be some evidence for it and not just an assertion based upon there own presuppositions.