Differences in Core Protestant Beleifs

[Publisher]

Lutherans teach that God works through means, the Word of the Gospel, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. It is by these means, and these means alone, that faith is both created and strengthened. One difference between Lutherans and the Reformed is that the latter teach that the Holy Ghost works “immediately” and directly on a person, able to create faith in a person apart from the Word and Sacraments.

Here’s a short excerpt from a Lutheran site:

“Salvation is a gift of God through, and as a result of, the meritorious life, and blood atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross. Man is justified before God for the sake of, and by the work of Christ. God’s revealed Word is the both the bearer of the message of that objective fact, as well as the power to convert the heart. Without the Means of Grace man neither knows the love of God, or the power of God unto salvation. For that reason the Holy Ghost works through the Means of Grace alone! and the Lutheran Confessions say: ‘Likewise, we reject and condemn the error of the Enthusiasts who imagine that God draws men to Himself, enlightens them, justifies them and saves them without means, without the hearing of God’s Word and without the use of the Sacraments.’ Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article II.” clclutheran.org/shared/thoughtdocs/meangrac.htm

So according to Lutheran tradition, those who do not submit to the ritual requirements understood by Luthrans, Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, a man cannot be saved by grace alone thru faith in Christ and His work on the cross alone…no matter how deep a faith and devotion they have to Him and no matter how they seek to conform their lives to Him thru service to “the least of these”? Trying to get clarification friend…want to understand if it is believed God will not…or cannot…give New Life without the ritual obervances of the sacraments.

 

[manualman]

Friend, let me ask you a question. Can God work in people’s lives and bring them to “fullness of grace” without any of the ritual observances being observed, but only receiving Christ “spiritually” thru faith…“after the manner of Friends”? Is the Lutheran position that the rituals are necessary to receive grace…or is “by grace thru faith” enough?

I can’t answer for Lutherans, but catholicism understands that God’s will was expressed in Christ founding a Church, in establishing sacraments, empowering a teaching authority… These things were not done to put shackles on God, but as gifts to humanity. If a person comprehends that these are gifts from God and that His will is that we abide by them, but chooses to rebel and do his own thing, then he’s guilty of the sin of rebellion. He CAN’T receive Grace through faith because he’s rejected God’s will. He’s trying to overpower God himself.

A person who through no fault of his own doesn’t recognize the Church, the sacraments, etc as the will of God isn’t necessarily damned. Again, these things are gifts from God and his will for humanity, but not a prison in which God is enchained. He’s GOD, He can save people through extraordinary means. But to move to analogies, it’s not really a smart move for a shipwreck victim to refuse help and stay in his life preserver when the rescue ship arrives simply because it’s theoretically possible that you could survive without said rescuers. God may have special mercy on the poor shipwreck victim who mistakes the rescuers for pirates and hides, but that doesn’t make it a prudent strategy!

 

[jrtrent]

Trying to get clarification friend…want to understand if it is believed God will not…or cannot…give New Life without the ritual obervances of the sacraments.

I think manualman gave a great answer. Both the LCMS and WELS have further information on the sacraments from a Lutheran perspective. Here’s an excerpt about baptism:

“The LCMS does not believe that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of Baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God). Still, Baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has His precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere “ritual” or “symbol,” but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins.” www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=537

 

[Publisher]

I can’t answer for Lutherans, but catholicism understands that God’s will was expressed in Christ founding a Church, in establishing sacraments, empowering a teaching authority… These things were not done to put shackles on God, but as gifts to humanity. If a person comprehends that these are gifts from God and that His will is that we abide by them, but chooses to rebel and do his own thing, then he’s guilty of the sin of rebellion. He CAN’T receive Grace through faith because he’s rejected God’s will. He’s trying to overpower God himself.

A person who through no fault of his own doesn’t recognize the Church, the sacraments, etc as the will of God isn’t necessarily damned. Again, these things are gifts from God and his will for humanity, but not a prison in which God is enchained. He’s GOD, He can save people through extraordinary means. But to move to analogies, it’s not really a smart move for a shipwreck victim to refuse help and stay in his life preserver when the rescue ship arrives simply because it’s theoretically possible that you could survive without said rescuers. God may have special mercy on the poor shipwreck victim who mistakes the rescuers for pirates and hides, but that doesn’t make it a prudent strategy!

I guess thru no fault of my own, I’m still in good shape…I would rather trust in the grace and mercy of God and trust that He will do what is right and just on that Last Day. I echo with Job…“Though He slay me, still will I trust Him.”

I choose to trust in His astounding grace and mercy received in faith that He has provided thru Christ what I could not provide for myself. Since He does all things well, I’m in very Good Hands…since I am not shipwrecked but rescued from the place I was stranded in already before any thought of ritual or sacraments was offered to me…with Paul, I have already been “translated into the Kingdom of His dear Son.” He knows me better than I know myself…and loves me with an Everlasting Love. Yes, I am in Good Hands.

 

[SteveVH]

I understand that…is the converse also true? That one can put their trust in God thru Christ and receive the “fullness of God’s grace” without ever engaging in any of the ritual observances?

Sacraments are not “ritual observances”. Sacraments actually accomplish what they signify. Our sins are actually washed away. We are actually given an indelible mark identifying us as belonging to Christ. We actually enter into such an intimate relationship with Christ that our very body and blood, as well as our soul, becomes one with him. We actually become reconciled with God. There are many attributes of the sacraments but they all convey God’s grace in a manner which cannot be duplicated by any other means.

Yes, we can certainly receive some degree of grace by putting our trust in God through Christ, but what does that really mean? Putting our trust in God through Christ means putting our trust in the Church he founded. The Church is not just some after-thought, just another option. It is Christ’s presence on earth and is therefore the means of salvation for mankind. The sacraments, administered by the Church, are the channels through which God gives us his grace. This is not just about me and God. It is about a family of which we, as individuals, are a part.

 

[Publisher]

Sacraments are not “ritual observances”. Sacraments actually accomplish what they signify. Our sins are actually washed away. We are actually given an indelible mark identifying us as belonging to Christ. We actually enter into such an intimate relationship with Christ that our very body and blood, as well as our soul, becomes one with him. We actually become reconciled with God. There are many attributes of the sacraments but they all convey God’s grace in a manner which cannot be duplicated by any other means.

Yes, we can certainly receive some degree of grace by putting our trust in God through Christ, but what does that really mean? Putting our trust in God through Christ means putting our trust in the Church he founded. The Church is not just some after-thought, just another option. It is Christ’s presence on earth and is therefore the means of salvation for mankind. The sacraments, administered by the Church, are the channels through which God gives us his grace. This is not just about me and God. It is about a family of which we, as individuals, are a part.

As a member of His Church by my baptism into His Body by the Holy Spirit I’d rather trust Him than me or those individuals in my family. I know He’s right…not sure about the rest of us.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Sacraments are not “ritual observances”. Sacraments actually accomplish what they signify. Our sins are actually washed away. We are actually given an indelible mark identifying us as belonging to Christ. We actually enter into such an intimate relationship with Christ that our very body and blood, as well as our soul, becomes one with him. We actually become reconciled with God. There are many attributes of the sacraments but they all convey God’s grace in a manner which cannot be duplicated by any other means.
.

Then why do adult converts have to wait until Ressurection Sunday?

 

[JonNC]

=Entangled;9956630]Protestant Church means “Protest.”

And the “protest” tookplace at the Second Diet at Speyer, 1529, a protest of attempts to limit the religious activities of the Evangelical churches by government. Kind of like the Catholic protest of the HHS mandate.

It didn’t stop there. Based on certain Biblical areas, they also started to “divide.” Like branches in a tree, with Catholism at the trunk, Lutheranism as the next branch and Methodists, Baptists, etc… going off from there.

Methodists and Baptists are not splinters off of Lutheranism. Methodists, for example, are splinters off of Anglicanism, which itself has different roots than Lutheranism. It isn’t simply that, once upon a ime, there was the Protestant Church, which then splintered.

Lutehrans, the grandaddy, do not recognise Holy Orders… thus meaning the Pope has no authority. As a fellow Lutheran at one time, I can say from my Synod, we had a great respect for him, but we did not see his authority. Saints had a back seat, Holy orders took a back seat, meaning Pastor could marry and not have to take vows. Grace became the forefront. Just go to God, Through Christ to have your sins forgiven privately.

Evidently, Lutheran catechesis was lacking. Lutherans in fact do recognise orders, and the confessions state the desirability of them. The confessions limit the right to preach and administer the sacraments to the ordained clergy. Lutherans do recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome - within his jurisdiction. What we reject is his claim to universal jurisdiction.
Further, Lutherans do recognize confession to a pastor/priest. We do it every Sunday in corporate confession, which ends with the pastor’s words:
“As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit +.”
And the availability of private confession is secured in the confessions as well. See Luther’s Small Catechism, and the Augsburg Confession.

Protestant means “Protest,” stemming back to the first skism against the Church which is now called Catholic (meaning Universal, which is it’s actual name.)

Incorrect, as I pointed out above.

You will see one giant theme in all Protestants. The Holy Orders is not recognized. It’s ancient authority is not recognized.

The differences in core protestant beliefs has to do with interpretation, sacrements and how they are viewed, pastoral differences, like men and women becoming pastors, how worship is conducted… like should it be solemn and humble souly concentrated on meditation concentrating on God in that way or should it be celebrated more elaborately, expressing your worship with song and dance and enjoyment of the fact you Love and Worship God?

And doctrine.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Friend, let me ask you a question. Can God work in people’s lives and bring them to “fullness of grace” without any of the ritual observances being observed, but only receiving Christ “spiritually” thru faith…“after the manner of Friends”?

First, while I understand that your position is that they are “ritual observances”, ours is they are sacraments, instituted for the purpose of salvation by Christ Himself.
God brings His grace to us by the means of grace - hearing the word, and receiving the sacraments. And His vehicle for doing this is the Church, where word and sacrament are found. It seems to me that, while I am unwilling to limit the ability of the Holy Spirit to move in the hearts of humans, I am also unwilling to limit or ignore the means Christ specifically instituted and set out for that purpose - word and sacrament.

Is the Lutheran position that the rituals are necessary to receive grace…or is “by grace thru faith” enough?

What is necessary to receive grace is the Holy Spirit. He uses the tools to do this, in His Church, word and sacrament.

If you are asking me if faith can come solely by hearing the word. Yes. And yet, we are told that, “he who believes and is Baptized shall be saved.” It doesn’t say, 'or". So, we believe that baptism is necessary to salvation. We baptize infants as a result, and baptize those who come to faith as adults. Why? Not because they are “ritual observances”, but because it is commanded by Christ Himself, as we hear in “the great commission”.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

A Protestant friend of mine tried to tell me that all Protestant denominations only disagree on “little matters” after I asked him why there are 30,000 different protestant denominations and how that kinda proves that protestants aren’t doing something right. He said they were things like “little t” traditions that don’t necessarily matter, like styles of music, population size, and location. Now, I am pretty sure that this is a false statement, but if anyone knows of a few LARGE core doctrinal differences between main protestant denominations, that would be a great help. I just do not know enough about the different denominations to be able to answer this question, and neither does my friend! haha!

Thanks SO Much!
God Bless You!

The beginning is what teh “core beliefs” are in the first place! There is not even agreement about those.

The Roman Catholic Church is "Holy Mother Church" in one (of many, many senses) in that all other (Protestant) churches have broken away from the Church that Jesus Christ founded during his days in Judaea.

The Caholic Church/Holy Mother Church is not “Roman” only. In fact, when the Church began in Palestine there were no “Romans” in it at first. The Latin Rite is actually one of the later Rites to develop. The Palestinian Rite is the oldest, of course, and Syrian. there are 22 non-Roman Rites in the CC all in communion with the successor of Peter.

Catholics believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”: all the other (Protestant) churches have no apostolicity.

I am not sure what you mean here about “no apostolicity”. The majority of mainline Protestants accept the creed, but understand the meaning of certain words differently. There are more Protestants that believe the Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic than there are not.

 

[andrewstx]

I understand that…is the converse also true? That one can put their trust in God thru Christ and receive the “fullness of God’s grace” without ever engaging in any of the ritual observances?

I believe God can do anything God wishes of course. But I feel that some, not just Friends make the xxception into the rule.

Protestants have been chipping away at the sacraments from their begining, first reducing them from 7 to 2, some making them solely symbolic, and then others turning them from sacraments to just “ordinances”.

But in a way I admire Fox and the Friends for having the courage to match their convictions, and going ahead and doing away with the sacraments entirely, they brought Protestantism to it’s conclusion.

Other Protestants beside Lutherans and Anglicans have made the sacraments so unimportant it’s like the beleive in salvation involving nothing but a mental prayer and thinking good thoughts, no physical acts needed.

 

[andrewstx]

I belive that humans are ritual animals, many non-liturgical Protestants find their ritual needs met in lodges and secret societies which are very ritualistic.

Others have their own rituals, my housemate has his ritual of making coffee which never varies at all.

I was raised initially in a fundamentaist denomination that never baptised anyone I saw, they did “dedicate” one child.

It was savation by mental prayer period, though in all the years they passed crackers and grape juice a whole 2 times.

That did not satisfy my spiritual needs tho, as an adult I had myself baptised and not a a mere symbol, I was Chrismated (confirmed) and recieved my first Holy Communion.

 

[manualman]

I guess thru no fault of my own, I’m still in good shape…I would rather trust in the grace and mercy of God and trust that He will do what is right and just on that Last Day. I echo with Job…“Though He slay me, still will I trust Him.”

I get what you are saying, but I don’t perceive that you completely understand what I’m saying. You’re still coming at this from an assumption that there IS no way to know if what a particular church teaches is true other than via one’s own inner discernment. I find this to be a puzzling assertion/assumption and one that inevitably leads to dangerous and anarchistic results. I trust in the grace and mercy of God specifically by placing myself in obedience to Christ and the structure of the Church that he clearly established in Scripture and Tradition (Sacraments, leaders that teach with authority, etc).

If I understand you correctly, you reject the reliability of these things as genuine and reliable revelations of truth about God and sources of Grace in life. Instead you believe that God makes revelation and Grace individually available to each individual and what each of those people experiences is more reliable than what is contained in any formal revelation or sacrament.

It’s certainly a different approach. I won’t say you can’t be saved, because God is God and I’m not. But it’s pretty clear that the approach you describe is NOT the approach revealed by Christ in the gospels and taught by the apostles. Doesn’t that give you pause sometimes and make you wonder if maybe you’re trying to force God into a spiritual mold of YOUR making? Granted, you can make the same charge against the apostles and the subsequent leadership of the Church (assuming they made it up instead of having it revealed to them), but you have to admit that this boils down into positions in which I’m willing to submit myself to God as revealed in the leadership of somebody else that God put into said leadership position while you are only willing to submit to God if God agrees to reveal things to you directly. So if you are correct, then you surely are simply placing yourself at His mercy. But if you’re wrong then you’re trying to coerce Him into a model of revelation that YOU want to be true rather than what He wills. Yikes.

If I’m wrong, I’m in danger of allowing mere men to have direct influence over the state of my soul. In response, I’ve looked at catholic teaching on a comprehensive basis as well as the historical perspective and find it implausible that any other explanation other than that God really does protect the Church from teaching falsehood could have resulted in the history we actually have.

If you’re wrong, then you’ve rejected the very help and mercy God sent to help you avoid the destructiveness of fallen human nature. I hope you too have thought about the consequences of having wrong initial assumptions and done lots of homework to try to check those assumptions against the knowable facts. I don’t expect to argue you into conversion, but I do like to be sure that I understand where someone is coming from and that they understand the extents of the difference in our positions. I didn’t feel like your position, as explained, indicated awareness of how “trust” can actually be “mistrust” if ones initial assumptions aren’t examined carefully.

Good discussion.

 

[PuddleJumper]

30,000, 40,000; heck, I’ve even heard that the number is over 50,000 now, but the fact of that matter is that those numbers are grossly overblown and really false. There may be that many titles or differences in name, but in doctrinal differences, there are FAR FAR less denominations. I think you could basically boil it down to maybe a dozen major denominations that pretty much all of them fall under.

 

[Publisher]

I get what you are saying, but I don’t perceive that you completely understand what I’m saying. You’re still coming at this from an assumption that there IS no way to know if what a particular church teaches is true other than via one’s own inner discernment. …If I understand you correctly, you reject the reliability of these things as genuine and reliable revelations of truth about God and sources of Grace in life. Instead you believe that God makes revelation and Grace individually available to each individual and what **
**It’s certainly a different approach. I won’t say you can’t be saved, because God is God and I’m not. But it’s pretty clear that the approach you describe is NOT the approach revealed by Christ in the gospels and taught by the apostles. Doesn’t that give you pause sometimes and make you wonder if maybe you’re trying to force God into a spiritual mold of YOUR making? es.

If I’m wrong, I’m in danger of allowing mere men to have direct influence over the state of my soul. In response, I’ve looked at catholic teaching on a comprehensive basis as well as the historical perspective and find it implausible that any other explanation other than that God really does protect the Church from teaching falsehood could have resulted in the history we actually have.

If you’re wrong, then you’ve rejected the very help and mercy God sent to help you avoid the destructiveness of fallen human nature. ** I hope you too have thought about the consequences of having wrong initial assumptions and done lots of homework**
Good discussion.

I’ve looked at Catholic teaching…historical evidence…and find the “miraculous” claims the Catholic church make for itself are not nearly as credible as the more “secular non-religous” understanding of the development of Christianity. I find the historical “interpretaions” of Bart Erhman, Elaine Pagels, John Domminic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Burton Mack, John Spong to be much more credible than the “faith affirming” history as taught by the Catholic/Orthodox church. Both are men’s approaches of history and development of Christian thought and belief…as well as the social and religious developments that caused Christianity to take it’s place in history.

Since I do not believe we have any writings of any of the original 12 apostles to draw on, only those who came to understand and “interpret” what the apostles taught. James of Jerusalem according to Acts seemed to wield a significant amount of authority in the Jerusalem church. The conflicts Paul wrote of with the Judaizer make much more sense to me in seeing the Jewish “church” in Jerusalem were the ones against Paul.

The writer of Acts almost “retells” the story of Peter in the second half of Acts using Paul as the “hero” now. We can see the contrast between the “Christianity” Paul espoused with his understanding of the eucharist as contrasted with the “other version” of the eucharist and it’s meaning by contrasting what Paul said in 1 Cor with how those congregations more in line with the Jerusalem church in the Didache as it tells us how those congregations viewed the eucharist.

The Didache makes no mention what so ever of the eucharist being a “sacrifice” in fact the meanings it ascribes seems more in line with “Protestant” symbology of the Lord’s Supper than the Eucharist in Catholic belief.

Christianity was an insignificat Jewish sect until after the fall of Jerusalem when Judaism made the “decision” that “rabbinical Judaism” would be the “authentic” expression Jewish belief and thought instead of the “Christian” understanding of Judaism’s “continuation”…Christianity became a separate faith system the burst upon the Roman Empire and throughout a large part of North Africa…very little is known of Christianity prior to the second century CE other than Paul’s writings and “Mark’s” gospel…“Matthew”, “Luke” and “John” were writte late in the 1st century CE or the first part of the 2nd century CE. All else is legend and “tradition”, stories used to “fill the void” of no authentic apostolic writings other than Paul’s…and the struggle of the various sects of those calling themselves “Christians” from the 2nd century on with the proto-orthodox/catholic groups gaining support becasue they implemented a network of “presbyters, bishops and deacons”…which the pastoral letters referenced…not authentic Paluline writings, but most likely influential members of the proto-orthodox/catholic faction.

I know, Catholic belief contradicts the above understanding…I guess you could consider me "invincibly ignorant’ about some things…but I don’t base my life and faith based on “what if I’m wrong I’ll go to hell” type beliefs…I believe in grace, love,mercy and the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth. No matter which “Christianity” was espoused in those first decades that developed into the sects that conflicted with one another…Jesus of Nazareth was God’s answer to the questions…“Am I loved by God”…“Is there someone I can turn to to find peace for my heart?” “Is there someone who will help me carry my burden?” And God’s answer was “Jesus”.

(cont.)

 

[Publisher]

(cont)

I am a Friend because I have experienced the love and mercy of God first hand. My responsibility is to “work out my own salvation”…and I do so with “fear and trembling”…because it IS an AWESOME, AMAZING, WONDERFUL God given responsibility, to know Him “inwardly”…“directly” with out the mediation of someone performing a ritual for me or on my behalf and that they must use the “correct matter” or “correct form” or “correct words” in order for this God who “know our inward parts”…this God “who formed us” and “bought us” to hear the “words which cannot be uttered” for Him to “help me, for I cannot help myself but trust in You.”

Do I worry…“What will I do if I’m wrong?”…no I don’t…It’s not about who I am that I trust in…it who He is that satisfies my longing…I don’t trust in what I believe about myself…but what I believe about Him and His steadfast love and faithfulness…“Lord I believe, help my unbelief”…“For I am perusaded that neither height, nor depth, nor angels nor principalities,nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor any created thing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.”…I am in Good Hands…and His perfect love “casts out fear”.

 

[Newsy]

I’ve looked at Catholic teaching…historical evidence…and find the “miraculous” claims the Catholic church make for itself are not nearly as credible as the more “secular non-religous” understanding of the development of Christianity. I find the historical “interpretaions” of Bart Erhman, Elaine Pagels, John Domminic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Burton Mack, John Spong to be much more credible than the “faith affirming” history as taught by the Catholic/Orthodox church. Both are men’s approaches of history and development of Christian thought and belief…as well as the social and religious developments that caused Christianity to take it’s place in history.

Since I do not believe we have any writings of any of the original 12 apostles to draw on, only those who came to understand and “interpret” what the apostles taught. James of Jerusalem according to Acts seemed to wield a significant amount of authority in the Jerusalem church. The conflicts Paul wrote of with the Judaizer make much more sense to me in seeing the Jewish “church” in Jerusalem were the ones against Paul.

The writer of Acts almost “retells” the story of Peter in the second half of Acts using Paul as the “hero” now. We can see the contrast between the “Christianity” Paul espoused with his understanding of the eucharist as contrasted with the “other version” of the eucharist and it’s meaning by contrasting what Paul said in 1 Cor with how those congregations more in line with the Jerusalem church in the Didache as it tells us how those congregations viewed the eucharist.

The Didache makes no mention what so ever of the eucharist being a “sacrifice” in fact the meanings it ascribes seems more in line with “Protestant” symbology of the Lord’s Supper than the Eucharist in Catholic belief.

Christianity was an insignificat Jewish sect until after the fall of Jerusalem when Judaism made the “decision” that “rabbinical Judaism” would be the “authentic” expression Jewish belief and thought instead of the “Christian” understanding of Judaism’s “continuation”…Christianity became a separate faith system the burst upon the Roman Empire and throughout a large part of North Africa…very little is known of Christianity prior to the second century CE other than Paul’s writings and “Mark’s” gospel…“Matthew”, “Luke” and “John” were writte late in the 1st century CE or the first part of the 2nd century CE. All else is legend and “tradition”, stories used to “fill the void” of no authentic apostolic writings other than Paul’s…and the struggle of the various sects of those calling themselves “Christians” from the 2nd century on with the proto-orthodox/catholic groups gaining support becasue they implemented a network of “presbyters, bishops and deacons”…which the pastoral letters referenced…not authentic Paluline writings, but most likely influential members of the proto-orthodox/catholic faction.

I know, Catholic belief contradicts the above understanding…I guess you could consider me "invincibly ignorant’ about some things…but I don’t base my life and faith based on “what if I’m wrong I’ll go to hell” type beliefs…I believe in grace, love,mercy and the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth. No matter which “Christianity” was espoused in those first decades that developed into the sects that conflicted with one another…Jesus of Nazareth was God’s answer to the questions…“Am I loved by God”…“Is there someone I can turn to to find peace for my heart?” “Is there someone who will help me carry my burden?” And God’s answer was “Jesus”.

(cont.)

So, how do we know anything about Jesus? How do we know the Bible is true? Your argument seems to call into question the very basis of Christianity. How do you know anything about God’s grace if it wasn’t passed down to us from the 1st century?

Have you read many Early Church Fathers? Their writings are helpful in determining dates for early Christian beliefs.

As far as " Didache makes no mention what so ever of the eucharist being a “sacrifice”, that proves nothing. If I were to give you written instructions to my home, I would expect that you knew how to drive a car and to drive on the correct side of the road. I would not include these details. Just because a liturgical book doesn’t elaborate on a particular subject, does not mean that it wasn’t believed.

You seem to have a very minimalistic view of the Christian Faith, that is fine. Please be aware that the 1st century Jews and Christians were not minimalists.

 

[Publisher]

So, how do we know anything about Jesus? How do we know the Bible is true? Your argument seems to call into question the very basis of Christianity. How do you know anything about God’s grace if it wasn’t passed down to us from the 1st century?

Have you read many Early Church Fathers? Their writings are helpful in determining dates for early Christian beliefs.

As far as " Didache makes no mention what so ever of the eucharist being a “sacrifice”, that proves nothing. If I were to give you written instructions to my home, I would expect that you knew how to drive a car and to drive on the correct side of the road. I would not include these details. Just because a liturgical book doesn’t elaborate on a particular subject, does not mean that it wasn’t believed.

You seem to have a very minimalistic view of the Christian Faith, that is fine. Please be aware that the 1st century Jews and Christians were not minimalists.

The Bible records how others experienced God and what they came to believe about Jesus of Nazareth. Those “heretical” documents not held by proto-catholic/orthodox Christians also teach what those communities came to believe about Jesus of Nazareth. As I said…they don’t necessarily agree with one another other than that somehow…some way…God was experienced in a profound and moving way in the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Each of the competing sects in those first centuries may have only one thing in common…God was revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.

Our western Christian tradition developed over a period of time. It was not provided out of whole cloth by the apostles. If it had been, there wouldn’t have been competing sects claiming to be the authentic voice of Christianity. Our experience with God thru Jesus of Nazareth is what has moved me. I have found God to be realized in Jesus of Nazareth. Just because I do not beleive your particular faith tradition embodies the “fullness of truth”, doesn’t mean it holds no truth nor does it mean I dismiss what it and the orthodox came to understand of Jesus of Nazareth.

So many have an “all or nothing” propisition…the story of Jesus is layer upon layer of spiritual truth…God is experienced inwardly…and Truth is lived outwardly.

I may not believe the stories of the Bible are historically literally factual, but I do believe they convey Truth…a Truth that can be known and lived out in our daily lives.

No, it’s not Catholic belief…and that’s ok with me…You must be free to find and experience God for yourself…and if you find Him thru the teachings of the Catholic church…wonderful…I wasn’t…haven’t been able to…but I did find Truth expressed among the Society of Friends in such a way that while I may not be able to “beleive” all the stories and legends as historical truth…I can embrace the Truth those stories seek to convey…and that Truth makes sense to me and make my life full and whole.

 

[manualman]

Clearly I’m not going to convince you, but I really must express my ongoing astonishment at how many people continue to find revisionist interpretations from scholars hundreds, often thousands of years later more reliable than the oldest of testimony we have. That’s crazier than saying that I’m a better source of facts on George Washington than the writings of the other US Founding Fathers.

As for the scholars who insist that the gospels all long post-date the apostles, their reasoning is appallingly circular. They start with the unchallenged assumption that there are no miracles (presumably because they have never experienced one personally). Then they read in the gospel accounts that Jesus clearly foretells the destruction of Jerusalem. Well, any fool knows that nobody can tell the future, therefore the gospels MUST have been written after the actual destruction of Jerusalem and pious believers simply put those words in the mouth of Jesus to bolster their case. Seriously, that’s a concise summary of their reasoning process. No thanks.

I’m simply going to let God be God, accept that He’s revealed Himself the way that He has, and do my best to surrender my will to His as expressed in His revelation. Good luck to you separating the desires of your fallen will from the still, small voice.

 

[manualman]

Our western Christian tradition developed over a period of time. It was not provided out of whole cloth by the apostles. If it had been, there wouldn’t have been competing sects claiming to be the authentic voice of Christianity.

That’s terrible reasoning! Shucksters and sincerely mistaken schismatics are nothing new in religion. Just because there were guys trying to hijack the gospel to remake it the way THEY wanted it as far back as the time of the apostles themselves in NO way demonstrates that the apostles were not the recipients of teaching authority. It just demonstrates that fallen human nature hasn’t changed much. What it REALLY demonstrates is WHY God judged it necessary to construct a visible authority to preserve and proclaim the gospel to the world: left to their own devices, men try to remake God into their OWN image.