Hi, Adf417,
This is more than an inconvenience for one who is truly following the Protestant road laid out by Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and the others who were so immersed in the revolt that they forgot to look where they were going.
Every since the Judiazers in the First Century (none of the Protestants I am aware of are advocating male circumcision!) to Modernism as condemned by the Pope in the 20th Century (
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm ) The Church of Christ has had those who firmly set out to believe whatever they wanted to believe. For 20 Centuries we have watched this parade of error - all designed to truly bring on the assault from the Gates of Hell - with the cry, âIf not victory, then revenge!â (Miltonâs âParadise Lostâ)
So, the real issue is, if your particular founder was active in the 16th Century - just how do you prove anything other than ânovelty of doctrineâ? I mean this is serious - one has to basically pretend that 1,500 years worth of history just didnât happen. I have heard two tales of how this may have happened. (Now, would I kid you about something like thisâŚ
)
1.) Shortly after the First Pentecost experience the early (proto-Protestants) Christians left Jerusalem and began to do their thing. Things like SS and SF and the Priesthood of the Believers were present but a work in progress at this time. Ah, youâll just have to take my word on this âŚ
And, the second - well, that is straight from Scripture (where else?)
2.) Early (Proto-Protestant) Christians from Beroea were able to preserve the teachings of Paul (yeah, SS, SF and Priesthood of the Believer as a work in progressâŚ!) and were finally recognized for their perseverance in the 16th Century for their totally clandestine efforts. Ah, youâll have to take my word on that one, tooâŚ
Here is the passage from Acts 17:
**
10The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. 11These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so.e 12Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men. 13But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had now been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea also, they came there too to cause a commotion and stir up the crowds. **
The origins of Protestantism are as clear as day from this passage⌠arenât they?
Just look at the believers from Beroea - they knew nothing good would come out of Rome and that scandal is all we can expect. So, by remaining hidden for 1,600 years and sneaking their documents out to Luther, the Revolt could have a biblical basis! :whacky: well⌠almost!
Ultimately, a person can not have it both ways:
1.) Either Christ changed His Mind and repudiated all He said He would do in the NT when it comes to founding a Church on Peter - and selected LutherâŚthen Calvin⌠then Henry VIII then⌠a lot of other guys to come up with contradictory doctrine from which they were to proclaim the message of salvation. Or,
2.) Christ didnât change His Mind, those in the Revolt liked the idea of being their own âpopeâ and simply formed a man-made religion with the idea that if they said Christâs name enough, He would see things their way and let them into Heaven.
The issue, unfortunately, is quite simple - they reluctantly reject the first because there is no evidence to support it - and reject the second because they are horrified at the idea that their leader is leading them off of the cliff! This, in my opinion, is why there are 30,000+ competing Protestant groups - once an individual group gets the idea that their current group is not doing things like they would want them, they revert to their ârebootâ position, Protest and then splinter from the existing group. Ongoing splintering is the hallmark of Protestantism!
God bless
Hey Tom you are preaching to the choir, well, not really the choir, heck I canât sing at all.:nope:
I know and agree with everything you have said and I have read it over and over in this thread and others. But I still think Iâm missing the Protestant explanation on this that would ultimately tell me WHICH church they speak of that is the true Church or confess that the gates of Hades have in fact prevailed. Yes, I realize the definition of church is not necessarily the RCC from their perspective or that it is not a building. Is it maybe, their reasoning, the Church is not at all an organization of any sort? No structural cohesiveness of any sort? Maybe just a âframe of mindâ? If this is the case, what would the gates of Hades have to prevail over?
Peace Bro!!
I am very proud to tell you that you have listed the Catholic religion is what you profess - and it is this same Catholic Church that is: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. None of the other churches can make a valid claim to these four characteristics and have it withstand even a cursory examination. All of the US Protestant groups can identify their founders from the 16th Century onward. With 30,000+ various and competing Protestant groups - all claiming that their version of the truth is better than their competitors - it is no wonder that there is some confusion.
