Can I compare Protestants to Gnostics seeing how both (i think) deny the real presence?

[Padres1969]

That’s the whole point of the comparison. I’m trying to get protestants to condemn themselves.

But Protestants aren’t Gnostics (at least a great many are not)… So how would you hope their condemning Gnostisicm would condemn themselves?

 

[Joe_5859]

That’s the whole point of the comparison. I’m trying to get protestants to condemn themselves.

That seems to me more likely to backfire than to get any Protestant to rethink his position on the Real Presence. If I were a Protestant, all I would be thinking is “I’m not a Gnostic, and if you think I am, then you don’t understand my position, and therefore I can’t seriously consider that you would be correct in your own position.”

 

[alwayswill]

That seems to me more likely to backfire than to get any Protestant to rethink his position on the Real Presence. If I were a Protestant, all I would be thinking is “I’m not a Gnostic, and if you think I am, then you don’t understand my position, and therefore I can’t seriously consider that you would be correct in your own position.”

Agreed: its like saying Hitler wanted trains to run on time and you want trains to run on time:

 

[Padres1969]

Agreed: its like saying Hitler wanted trains to run on time and you want trains to run on time:

When comparing to most Protestants this is like saying Hitler wanted the trains to run on time, so they want everyone to have city water access. Most Protestants aren’t Gnostic.

 

[JonNC]

No. That’s Zwingli. **Not representative of Lutherans or the Reformed. **

Which is** not **to say that Lutheran and and Reformed teachings are the same, or even similar, on the topic.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Gnostics don’t believe in transubstantiation or the Real Presence…
BECAUSE BECAUSE BECAUSE
They don’t believe Jesus was God in the flesh…

You are right on here.

That is NOT the Protestant position

There is no such thing as “the Protestant position”.

Protestantism is a behemoth of tens of thousands of different positions, all sanctioned because their positions “are in the Bible”.

And that is the rotten fruit of divorcing oneself from the Church which gave us the kerygma.

 

[alwayswill]

You are right on here.

There is no such thing as “the Protestant position”.

Protestantism is a behemoth of tens of thousands of different positions, all sanctioned because their positions “are in the Bible”.

And that is the rotten fruit of divorcing oneself from the Church which gave us the kerygma.

Prot·es·tant
ˈprädəstənt/
noun
a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches."​

not all non-Catholic “Christians” are Protestant

 

[PRmerger]

Prot·es·tant
ˈprädəstənt/
noun
a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.

not all non-Catholic “Christians” are Protestant

Tell me what Protestantism professes regarding:

Baptism–is it a sacrament? Or an ordinance?
Should it be done in infancy or as an adult?

Women’s ordination–is it permitted or prohibited?

Abortion–is it permitted or prohibited?

The Rapture–true or false?

Salvation–once saved always saved? Or can we lose our salvation?

Please cite THE Protestant position on this, and please cite your authoritative source for declaring this to be THE Protestant position.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no such thing as “the Protestant position”.

Protestantism is a behemoth of tens of thousands of different positions, all sanctioned because their positions “are in the Bible”.

And that is the rotten fruit of divorcing oneself from the Church which gave us the kerygma.

Prot·es·tant
ˈprädəstənt/
noun
a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches."​

not all non-Catholic “Christians” are Protestant

Tell me what Protestantism professes regarding:

Baptism–is it a sacrament? Or an ordinance?
Should it be done in infancy or as an adult?

Women’s ordination–is it permitted or prohibited?

Abortion–is it permitted or prohibited?

The Rapture–true or false?

Salvation–once saved always saved? Or can we lose our salvation?

Please cite THE Protestant position on this, and please cite your authoritative source for declaring this to be THE Protestant position.

And, in fairness, if you would like, I can offer THE Catholic position on the above questions, as well as cite my sources for this.

This, of course, demonstrates that there is such a thing as THE CATHOLIC POSITION, but I’m quite certain you will not be able to cite THE PROTESTANT POSITION on the above questions.

 

[JonNC]

Tell me what Protestantism professes regarding:

Baptism–is it a sacrament? Or an ordinance? Sacrament
Should it be done in infancy or as an adult? infancy

Women’s ordination–is it permitted or prohibited? an innovation

Abortion–is it permitted or prohibited? the taking of a life

The Rapture–true or false? depends on what one means

Salvation–once saved always saved? Or can we lose our salvation? we can indeed reject grace

Please cite THE Protestant position on this, and please cite your authoritative source for declaring this to be THE Protestant position.

There isn’t one, because protestant isn’t a church, it isn’t a theology, it was a formal protest against civil authorities. It is a misuse of the term to claim it is a theology/church, etc.

Jon

 

[adamhovey1988]

St Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 110 AD:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

When St Ignatius is referring to those who hold “heterodox opinions” is he talking about the gnostics? Or some other people? Did all gnostics deny the true presence or just some?

If he is talking about the gnostics, can i rightly tell a protestant that he/she is like the gnoistics of the early church who denied the true presence at the Eucharist?

Depends on which gnostics and which protestants.

 

[Tomyris]

Which is** not **to say that Lutheran and and Reformed teachings are the same, or even similar, on the topic.

Jon

I didn’t say they were.

 

[Tomyris]

They don’t believe Jesus was God in the flesh…

You are right on here.

No. This is a gross misrepresentation of Protestant thought and belief. Show me where in any of the Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed confessions where any of these deny that Jesus was God in the flesh.

There is no such thing as “the Protestant position”.

Protestantism is a behemoth of tens of thousands of different positions, all sanctioned because their positions “are in the Bible”.

And that is the rotten fruit of divorcing oneself from the Church which gave us the kerygma.

You paint badly with a broad brush. One could equally say that Catholicism is a behemoth of tens of thousands of different positions, all sanctioned because their positions have not been rejected by the Magisterium. And that is the rotting fruit of submitting to men who sold out the church for secular political power and wealth.

These statements get us nowhere. I think the OP has been amply answered with a “NO” loudly by both Protestants and Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

There isn’t one, because protestant isn’t a church, it isn’t a theology, it was a formal protest against civil authorities. It is a misuse of the term to claim it is a theology/church, etc.

Jon

Egg-zactly. That’s why it’s poor terminology for people to talk about “the Protestant position”.

And I will cite, if you like, Protestant churches which disagree with everything you’ve proposed as part of the Lutheran position.

But then again, they are doing to your Lutheran theology what Luther did to Catholic theology (that is, saying that they have read the Bible and determined that Lutherans are wrong on this), so, I suppose, you cannot tell them that their position is wrong, without indicting Lutheranism.

 

[JonNC]

Egg-zactly. That’s why it’s poor terminology for people to talk about “the Protestant position”.

And I will cite, if you like, Protestant churches which disagree with everything you’ve proposed as part of the Lutheran position.

But then again, they are doing to your Lutheran theology what Luther did to Catholic theology (that is, saying that they have read the Bible and determined that Lutherans are wrong on this), so, I suppose, you cannot tell them that their position is wrong, without indicting Lutheranism.

And what “Roman” Catholics did to early Church teaching… some might say.

Actually, they have come to their own beliefs, not necessarily as a counter to Lutheranism. And of course we believe and say they are wrong, and we often use The Fathers and the early Church to defend our view.

Jon

 

[susanlo]

St Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 110 AD:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

When St Ignatius is referring to those who hold “heterodox opinions” is he talking about the gnostics? Or some other people? Did all gnostics deny the true presence or just some?

If he is talking about the gnostics, can i rightly tell a protestant that he/she is like the gnoistics of the early church who denied the true presence at the Eucharist?

Well, if you read the whole Letter to the Smyrnaeans (earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-longer.html) and feel that it applies to a particular group, then it would be ok. There are certain phrases like: “but blasphemes my Lord, not owning Him to be God incarnate? He that does not confess this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.” and “Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not obtain eternal life” and “They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection.”

This letter was warning about a group of Gnostics called Docetists: “Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one… Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances.” - britannica.com/topic/Docetism

If the Protestant you are speaking of holds those beliefs, then they probably are a Gnostic.

 

[PRmerger]

And what “Roman” Catholics did to early Church teaching… some might say.

How so?

Can you give some examples of what you mean here, Jon?

 

[JonNC]

How so?

Can you give some examples of what you mean here, Jon?

the Filioque , IC, universal jurisdiction , Aristotilean philosophical terms to describe the change in the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

the Filioque , IC, universal jurisdiction , Aristotilean philosophical terms to describe the change in the Eucharist.

You will first have to give where the Church taught something that was NOT the filioque, and what the teaching was prior to using Aristotilean philosophical terms.

 

[JonNC]

You will first have to give where the Church taught something that was NOT the filioque, and what the teaching was prior to using Aristotilean philosophical terms.

No, you have to show which council, or Father taught these. When was the creed first written that way?

Jon