God is Not the Author of Protestantism

[rr1213]

That is one truth. The following is also true:

1. 
   *]Ephesians 5:23
   For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
   
   *]Ephesians 5:29
   After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—
   
   *]Colossians 1:24
   Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
   
   The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the head. You were baptized (hopefully) into Christ, that is into His Body, the Church.

1. 
   There are a number of different Scriptural descriptions of the Church, all valid. Sometimes though, as when we mix metaphors, reasoning based on one description, or one type of understanding, does not always carry through when you are considering another type of description.

 

[allischalmers]

I never want to a Protestant Bible college or any college for that matter. However I have done a lot of Bible study and history.
So I would like to ask Catholics, Catholic Colleges ,I am sure, teach church history and the ECF’s. Do you not think that Protestant college’s teach the same.

Proud to be Baptist
allischalmers

 

[TNT]

The Church is the bride of Christ, not Christ.

Here is the way I see it:
We should have no less advantage today than the first Christians (Apostles) had in the Presence of the Messiah.
So, IMHO,
The Church is the CONTINUATION of the Messiah (His Mystical BODY) visible for all until His (physical) Body returns.
That is why He informs us that:
THIS IS MY BODY. THIS IS MY BLOOD.
If he will not hear the Church, discard him.
The Church is the Pillar & Ground of the Truth…a statement that can only literally apply to the Body of Christ Himself…yet the Church is given this same attribute.
Thou art Cephus…the Rock…the Head of the Church…Rock was only a Name for God (and another Head, Abraham) until He turns it over now to the Head of His Church.

So, all things in Christ are equally available to a member of the Church as they were to a member of the Apostles having Christ …Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity and Teaching, available to them.

That’s all.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Maybe and maybe not. God also was not the author of the Fall, yet He worked with the mess that sinful men gave to him. God is able–and more importantly, willing–to make good come out of bad situations created by our sin. Romans 8:28–And we know that in ***all ***things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." (NIV) (Emphasis added).

Or, to adapt that slightly:​

• God also was not the author of Catholicism, yet He worked with the mess that sinful men gave to him. God is able–and more importantly, willing–to make good come out of bad situations created by our sin. Romans 8:28–And we know that in ***all ***things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." (NIV) (Emphasis added).
  A hostile Protestant could easily say that - the argument can be used against the CC with great ease. In any case, God does not need any Church - He has no need of any creature. So it is senseless for any of us nothings to strut about as though we were more solid & lasting than our fellow-creatures. To boast of the excellence of the Church one belongs to, or put down others, are forgetting that of oneself one is nothing but dust and ashes (if that). A Church that habitually puts others down succeeds only in giving the impression that it has forgotten that, but for God’s grace & mercy, it would be less in every way than it says they are.

God needs no Churches - there was a time when none at all existed. They, by contrast, most certainly need Him, otherwise they would return to the nothingness from which He called them into being by His all-creating Word. And just as the world was Churchless at first, it can be Churchless again - for all that preserves the Church from becoming nothing once more is His goodwill & pleasure: it has no escape from Him. It brought nothing to God to establish a claim upon Him: all it has that is good in any way, comes from His goodness, His mercy, His purpose, His initiative in every respect. So it has nothing by which it can benefit Him, & nothing it can withdraw from Him so as to compel Him to do its will.

He has so little need of it, that He can raise up sons to Abraham from the very stones. He can perfectly well do the work He laid upon the Church in ways that do not involve it - as the fact that even atheists can baptise shows. Conversely, the Church can be plucked up from a place in which it was very extensive, and become hardly so much as a memory - as in Roman Africa.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I never want to a Protestant Bible college or any college for that matter. However I have done a lot of Bible study and history.
So I would like to ask Catholics, Catholic Colleges ,I am sure, teach church history and the ECF’s. Do you not think that Protestant college’s teach the same.

Proud to be Baptist
allischalmers

I know someone who went to a Protestant college. I think it was Fundamentalist/Evangelical as far as denomination goes. My understanding is that this type of college teaches the Bible and the Protestant professors interpretation of it. Also, you might learn some apologetic arguments. I guess the exact nature of the interpretations and apologetical arguments depends a great deal on the personal viewpoints of the professors and how much, if any, anti-other denominations and/or anti-Catholicism is present in the college. But no, I doubt that the vast majority of the Protestant colleges have any courses that do an indepth study of the Early Church Fathers (though they may pop a couple of quotes taken out of context, if it seems oppurtune - again depends on the nature of the faculty).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello,

I know someone who went to a Protestant college. I think it was Fundamentalist/Evangelical as far as denomination goes. My understanding is that this type of college teaches the Bible and the Protestant professors interpretation of it. Also, you might learn some apologetic arguments. I guess the exact nature of the interpretations and apologetical arguments depends a great deal on the personal viewpoints of the professors and how much, if any, anti-other denominations and/or anti-Catholicism is present in the college. But no, I doubt that the vast majority of the Protestant colleges have any courses that do an indepth study of the Early Church Fathers (though they may pop a couple of quotes taken out of context, if it seems oppurtune - again depends on the nature of the faculty).

John Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

You’ll never find anything that resembles 1st Baptist or 1st Prebyterian anywhere in the first century.

You’ll even find the church BEFORE the scriptures and people obeyed it, too!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

You’ll never find anything that resembles 1st Baptist or 1st Prebyterian anywhere in the first century.

You’ll even find the church BEFORE the scriptures and people obeyed it, too!

 

[skeptictank]

How right you are Randy. Now the question is how do you get that point across to the “big box” non-denoms that are sprouting up all over the place?

with all due respect, by this line of reasoning, the catholic church must not be christ’s church, because there is also confusion within its very walls.

Where there are people, there will be differences. Such a pressence is a testamony of humanity.

I could just as easily apply this reason to Judaism, but I’m sure you wouldn’t suggest that I become Jewish.

The merit of your church should rest on the biblical validity of its claims, and truth of its message.

Just my oppinion.

Skeptictank

 

[Mannyfit75]

with all due respect, by this line of reasoning, the catholic church must not be christ’s church, because there is also confusion within its very walls.

Where there are people, there will be differences. Such a pressence is a testamony of humanity.

I could just as easily apply this reason to Judaism, but I’m sure you wouldn’t suggest that I become Jewish.

The merit of your church should rest on the biblical validity of its claims, and truth of its message.

Just my oppinion.

Skeptictank

We cannot deny the fact that most Catholics (non-practicing) do not follow the moral laws of the Church (fornication, using contraception etc). They have become disobedient. However, there are faithful Catholics today like myself, and other like me who remain faithful to Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church.

The Church as a whole is lead by Pope, who Christ promise that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” For over 2,000 yrs, no Pope have declare any heretical doctrine and have remain consistent with the teachings of Jesus, whom he handed down to his Apostles and their successors.

The doctrines and teachings of the Catholics are One. Protestantism is filled with mix doctrines. They have Protestants who do not believe in the Trinity (because the word itself is not in the Bible, (Jesus Only), there are those who believe in the symbolism of the Eucharist, and that baptism is only symbolic, and yet there are those who views are different.

Not all of the Protestants Churches are united in faith. The Catholic Church professes one faith, one baptism in Jesus, and this is fully sum up in the Nicene Creed.

There are Protestants who believe in OSAS and the Rapture, and there are those Protestants who don’t believe in those doctrines.

 

[skeptictank]

We cannot deny the fact that most Catholics (non-practicing) do not follow the moral laws of the Church (fornication, using contraception etc). They have become disobedient. However, there are faithful Catholics today like myself, and other like me who remain faithful to Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church.

I don’t really see the relevance. By the way, there are those who call themselves catholic who believe quite separate doctrines. (the inclusion of mary in the trinity for example).

The Church as a whole is lead by Pope, who Christ promise that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Where is it in scripture that the church would be lead by a pope?

For over 2,000 yrs, no Pope have declare any heretical doctrine and have remain consistent with the teachings of Jesus, whom he handed down to his Apostles and their successors.

Are you familiar with some historical source where I might examine the officially infallibley declared doctrines of the popes?

The doctrines and teachings of the Catholics are One. Protestantism is filled with mix doctrines.

The fact that you take a word (catholic) and ascribe to it the unity which you proclaim, and take another word “protestant” and ascribe to it non-unity, does not make those teachings of the present day Catholic church, true. Nor does it in any way validate those doctrines. Check out the mormon church and you will see an example of unity which is quite obviously false.

They have Protestants who do not believe in the Trinity (because the word itself is not in the Bible, (Jesus Only), there are those who believe in the symbolism of the Eucharist, and that baptism is only symbolic, and yet there are those who views are different.

Not all of the Protestants Churches are united in faith.

The Catholic Church professes one faith, one baptism in Jesus, and this is fully sum up in the Nicene Creed.

Does that mean that everything that is taught by the church is true?

[qutoe]There are Protestants who believe in OSAS and the Rapture, and there are those Protestants who don’t believe in those doctrines.

I am now curious as to how this invalidates the reformation.

As I understand it, the Reformation occured because the church prohibited the education of its “members” and killed anyone who spoke against it and its practices, which were, at that time, treacherous at best

Skeptictank

 

[skeptictank]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rr1213 View Post
The Church is the bride of Christ, not Christ.

That is one truth. The following is also true:

1. Ephesians 5:23
   For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
2. Ephesians 5:29
   After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—
3. Colossians 1:18
   And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
4. Colossians 1:24
   Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the head. You were baptized (hopefully) into Christ, that is into His Body, the Church.

You’re both right, for twain become one. As it is written.

Skeptictank

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t really see the relevance. By the way, there are those who call themselves catholic who believe quite separate doctrines. (the inclusion of mary in the trinity for example).

Where is it in scripture that the church would be lead by a pope?

Are you familiar with some historical source where I might examine the officially infallibley declared doctrines of the popes?

The fact that you take a word (catholic) and ascribe to it the unity which you proclaim, and take another word “protestant” and ascribe to it non-unity, does not make those teachings of the present day Catholic church, true. Nor does it in any way validate those doctrines. Check out the mormon church and you will see an example of unity which is quite obviously false.

Does that mean that everything that is taught by the church is true?

[qutoe]There are Protestants who believe in OSAS and the Rapture, and there are those Protestants who don’t believe in those doctrines.

I am now curious as to how this invalidates the reformation.

As I understand it, the Reformation occured because the church prohibited the education of its “members” and killed anyone who spoke against it and its practices, which were, at that time, treacherous at best

Skeptictank

First, let us take this one piece at a time.

The Pope derives from the word, papa, or father. The Pope is not in the Bible. The Bible does state that Jesus will built his Church read Matthew 16:7-20

*And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
*

It is only this passage that Jesus declare Peter as the Rock. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic is a another Hebrew dialect spoken in the 1st Century Palestine.

Matthew in its original context is written in Aramaic. If we were to take this in Aramaic style writings you would read Matthew 16:17-20.

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this Kephas. I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Kephas is the Aramaic word for Rock.

Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Source: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[skeptictank]

First, let us take this one piece at a time.

The Pope derives from the word, papa, or father. The Pope is not in the Bible. The Bible does state that Jesus will built his Church read Matthew 16:7-20

*And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
*

It is only this passage that Jesus declare Peter as the Rock. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic is a another Hebrew dialect spoken in the 1st Century Palestine.

What makes you think he spoke aramaic? The common tongue of the day was a form of greek.

Matthew in its original context is written in Aramaic. If we were to take this in Aramaic style writings you would read Matthew 16:17-20.

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this Kephas. I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Kephas is the Aramaic word for Rock.

Yet in the greek text (preportedly authorized by the church herself) it reads “you are petras and on this petros shall I buil my church”.

This can easily be read, as declaring that christ will build the church on his father, and the truth revealed thereby, while making Peter a part of that process.

Even if I am wrong, you still have not connected peter with the papacy, nor have you validated papal succession, nor have you even come close to proving what you claim to be truth.

Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

So he was important. that is not in dispute.

Skeptictank

Source: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[rr1213]

For over 2,000 yrs, no Pope have declare any heretical doctrine and have remain consistent with the teachings of Jesus, whom he handed down to his Apostles and their successors.

Of course this is somewhat of a self-defining or self-fullfilling prophecy. Any thing relating to faith and morals that the Pope and/or ecumencial councils with the Pope’s blessing have defined are automatically accepted as being truth, i.e., not heresy. You could have a theological concept where there is controversy, respected bishops on both sides of the issues, and WHAM it is defined in favor of one of the positions thereby making the defined concept theological truth and the other heresy.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Of course this is somewhat of a self-defining or self-fullfilling prophecy. Any thing relating to faith and morals that the Pope and/or ecumencial councils with the Pope’s blessing have defined are automatically accepted as being truth, i.e., not heresy. You could have a theological concept where there is controversy, respected bishops on both sides of the issues, and WHAM it is defined in favor of one of the positions thereby making the defined concept theological truth and the other heresy.

"In Luke xxii. 32 another utterance is recorded, “When thou hast returned, be a support to thy brethren,” which is significant enough when it comes as a pendant to the words “I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not”- - it is the only record we have of our Lord offering prayer for an individual. Does not this, too, help to define Peter’s relation to his fellow-apostles? And finally, in John xxi., after deliberately singling out Peter among his fellows, our Lord devolves upon him that pastoral office which was his own prized title in Chapter x. Can we doubt that, though the plenitude of authority has been put in commission among the apostles, the plenitude of apostleship lies here?

The See of Peter had from the first a primacy, not of jurisdiction, indeed, but of honour. Now this distinction is not here in point. Whether the primacy was one of honour or of jurisdiction, it is a central fact in the traditions of the Church; a party out of Communion with the diocese of Rome was “ipso facto” a party without a primate, and therefore, in the event of a grave schism, was recognisably the wrong party to belong to.

Dean Milman, in an inspired moment, allowed himself to admire the astuteness of the Roman prelates in having always managed, in all the Church’s doctrinal disputes, to come down on the orthodox side. It would have spared him trouble if he had had the ingenuity to reflect that the reason why we call it the orthodox side is because the Roman prelates belonged to it. The Arians have gone down to history as heretics, and their opponents as Catholics, precisely because the Arians took the non-Roman side. The Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Macedonians, the Donatists are described as heretics, precisely because they took the non-Roman side. That is because, up to the sixteenth century, history was written by Roman Catholics. That the Orthodox, Greeks, and “a fortiori” the Protestant sects, attach the stigma of “heresy” to these early theological views is simply a survival–a survival of the Roman Catholic language which their forefathers had used before they, too, went into schism. What the Greek dioceses did in the later Middle Ages, what the Protestants did in the sixteenth century, was precisely what the Arians and Nestorians had done before them; they took the non-Roman side in a dispute. And the stigma of heresy which “Orthodox” Greeks or Protestants attach to Arius and Nestorius comes badly from them. They are tarred with the same brush." - Monsignor Ronald Knox

 

[Randy_Carson]

with all due respect, by this line of reasoning, the catholic church must not be christ’s church, because there is also confusion within its very walls.

Where there are people, there will be differences. Such a pressence is a testamony of humanity.

I could just as easily apply this reason to Judaism, but I’m sure you wouldn’t suggest that I become Jewish.

The merit of your church should rest on the biblical validity of its claims, and truth of its message.

And it does.

However, your opinion is incorrect as follows:

Within Catholicism, individuals may hold a range of opinions on each doctrine; however, the Church only offers one position. There is no confusion within official Church teaching.

Within Protestantism, not only do individual members hold a range of opinions on each doctrine, but also.the “churches” themselves offer a wide variety of interpretations and implementations on a given doctrine. Not only do Baptists not agree with Lutherans on baptism, but the Lutherans are split between the Missouri Synod and the ELCA over the issue of justification.

God the Father and God the Son are not divided over infant baptism or the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Do you think the Holy Spirit is there to cast the tie-breaking vote?

There is only one fullness of Truth, and it is taught by the Catholic Church. All other “gospels” are partial at best and false at worst.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s more proof that Protestantism was not of God:

biblelight.net/keenan.htm#28

 

[Randy_Carson]

What makes you think he spoke aramaic? The common tongue of the day was a form of greek.

You mean other than the fact that Jesus called Peter, “Simon Bar-Jonah”?'And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19)“Bar-Jona” being the Aramaic expression for 'Son of Jona"?

Or that Jesus said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)."? (John 1:42)

“Cephas” is Aramaic for “rock” which John translates for us as “Petros” or “Peter” in English.

Yet in the greek text (preportedly authorized by the church herself) it reads “you are petras and on this petros shall I buil my church”.

This can easily be read, as declaring that christ will build the church on his father, and the truth revealed thereby, while making Peter a part of that process.

PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCK

“This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (Protestant scholars W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (Presbyterian minister David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Even if I am wrong, you still have not connected Peter with the papacy, nor have you validated papal succession, nor have you even come close to proving what you claim to be truth.

I recently did exactly this in another thread entitled "Apostolic Succession in the Catholic Church. You may wish to review and comment there.

 

[Nicene]

I guess God was the God of confusion during the OT times?

Interesting proposition. Did God work in remnants in the OT, saving those who remained faithful within Israel? Or did go with those who revolted?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene