How do protestants explain history

[manualman]

Any thread that starts out with “how do protestants ___________” is doomed to pointless bickering. The word is nearly meaningless in the breadth of its definition anymore.

We’d be more productive to point out how absurd it is for modern evangelical groups to declare that Jesus never intended communion to be more than a symbol, to deny the importance of apostolic succession, heck some offshoots even question the Trinity these days.

To the poster who found it difficult to find Catholicism in the early church, try the “Faith of the Early Fathers” series by Jurgens (IIRC). Even us non-academic folks can read and understand it.

Personally, my favorite irony about many evangelicals(notice how careful I said that!) is their dogmatic insistence that the bible and only the bible is an authoritative rule of faith, even though that dogma isn’t actually taught in the BIBLE! The closest they can get is 2 Tim 3:16, which isn’t very close. It proves that the man of God isn’t complete without Scriptural knowledge and study, but does not demonstrate that the bible ALONE makes him so.

 

[dronald]

Any thread that starts out with “how do protestants ___________” is doomed to pointless bickering. The word is nearly meaningless in the breadth of its definition anymore.

We’d be more productive to point out how absurd it is for modern evangelical groups to declare that Jesus never intended communion to be more than a symbol, to deny the importance of apostolic succession, heck some offshoots even question the Trinity these days.

To the poster who found it difficult to find Catholicism in the early church, try the “Faith of the Early Fathers” series by Jurgens (IIRC). Even us non-academic folks can read and understand it.

Personally, my favorite irony about many evangelicals(notice how careful I said that!) is their dogmatic insistence that the bible and only the bible is an authoritative rule of faith, even though that dogma isn’t actually taught in the BIBLE! The closest they can get is 2 Tim 3:16, which isn’t very close. It proves that the man of God isn’t complete without Scriptural knowledge and study, but does not demonstrate that the bible ALONE makes him so.

Or 1 Corin 4:6, but I feel like this thread is out for Evangelicals so i’m just gonna hang back for a bit.

 

[Adamski]

Adamski–To get answers, you really need to specify which particular lineage of Evangelicals you want to hear from: Evangelical Methodists, Evangelical Anglicans, Baptists, Reformed, Evangelical Presbyterians, or who do you have in mind? We’re all Evangelicals, but our post-Reformation roots largely influence our beliefs regarding Scripture, traditions, and sacraments.

It would be the type that made the alter call and is saved but keeps going around sinning not changing their life. Or has found a church community that excepts their sins as not sinful, Mars hill in Seattle would be a great example

 

[Per_Crucem]

It would be the type that made the alter call and is saved but keeps going around sinning not changing their life. Or has found a church community that excepts their sins as not sinful, Mars hill in Seattle would be a great example

Do you have any example of church members of Mars Hill believing their sins are not sinful or of their members going around saying they are saved but still living in sin?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Lutherans and Anglicans both can, if you are implying Apostolic Succession. While not all Lutheran pastors have AS (not all Catholic priests have had it, either), many do, through undeniable lines.
So, yes, we trace our beginnings in the Church Catholic which dates back to Pentecost.

Jon

Yes, and the Roman Catholic Church accepts the apostolic succession in parts of the Lutheran Church where historic circumstance did not break this line to the Apostles.

 

[dronald]

It would be the type that made the alter call and is saved but keeps going around sinning not changing their life. Or has found a church community that excepts their sins as not sinful, Mars hill in Seattle would be a great example

I googled Mars Hill and couldn’t find anything like that. I did find this in the wiki article though:

*Singer-songwriter Mary Lambert formerly attended Mars Hill, but going to a church that teaches that sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a sin caused her to cry after church. The line “I’m not crying on Sundays” from Lambert and Macklemore’s song Same Love is her response to the teachings of the church. *

 

[rfournier103]

Below is some answers I have got gotten from Evangelicals:

Below are my translations:*****

“With technology we can be closer to God and understand Him more”

“Hopefully the internet can help me find a rebuttal to your argument; because I can’t find one in the Bible.”

“I believe in the Bible not history”

“The history books spell it all out very plainly; so I can’t rely on those. But since the Bible is open to interpretation; I’ll just interpret it in such a way that agrees with me.”

“Well what is important is we both believe in Jesus as our Savior I just like a different type of worship”

“I can’t bring myself to admit that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. Can we change the subject? How about those Red Sox???”

*The above translations are for entertainment purposes ONLY. Any other use of this post or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of this post without rfournier103’s or Adamski’s consent is prohibited.

No Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, non-believers, or animals were harmed in the creation of this post.

 

[manualman]

Or 1 Corin 4:6, but I feel like this thread is out for Evangelicals so i’m just gonna hang back for a bit.

Out? Sorry if things get rowdy sometimes, but I’m not sure participation is “out” for anybody. Theological barfights are a long Christian tradition, after all! The original “Santa Claus” was more famous in his day for punching Arius in the nose at Nicea than for his gifts to children…

If 1 Cor. 4:6 says what you think it says, don’t you think Paul was a bit remiss in not being a bit more specific about what writings were the sole dogmatic authority for believers versus those that were mere musings of (sometimes holy) men? Does that really seem like something that would slip Paul’s mind? Seems a bit far fetched to me! If I’m a Corinthian reader of the era and I understood it to mean what you think Paul intended it to mean, wouldn’t that require me to discount the authority of anything NOT written by Paul? It says nothing about writings by Peter, or James, or Luke…

So forgive me if I suggest that the underlying assumption of your argument still seems to rely on an intact, bound copy of the bible falling from heaven at some point accompanied by a ringing voice command (not written) to accept no other authority.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, and the Roman Catholic Church accepts the apostolic succession in parts of the Lutheran Church where historic circumstance did not break this line to the Apostles.

I would be thrilled if that were the case. Here’s hoping to hear it from Pope Francis himself.

Jon

 

[siamus2k13]

Our message, no, Christ’s message through us, His Church, would be much stronger were we truly united. As the great hymn, The Church’s One Foundation say;
She is from every nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

Jon

The church would be stronger if unified. That is true.

But…

Does everybody have to be Catholic?

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

 

[manualman]

I would be thrilled if that were the case. Here’s hoping to hear it from Pope Francis himself.

I’m not so sure he’s right on that. He’s been asked to back up similar claims before… Not holding my breath!

 

[JonNC]

The church would be stronger if unified. That is true.

But…

Does everybody have to be Catholic?

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Do we all have to be Catholic? No. We all have to be Lutheran.

Seriously.
Obviously, I believe that a unified visible Church is as important as a unified invisible Church. And initial unity of the Church is found in the early Church, of which the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is a central part. For unity to be true, we would all have to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, as well as the EO.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m not so sure he’s right on that. He’s been asked to back up similar claims before… Not holding my breath!

Here’s how I would know this were true, short of an announcement from the Vatican: if in 2017 there is Eucharistic hospitality between Catholics and Lutherans. That would prove, from the Catholic side, that the Catholic Church recognizes our sacrament to be valid.
I don’t see it happening, but I pray for the day when we are one again.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Not to pick on you, but from the Lutheran stand point this is completely the opposite of how we understand our church - as we profess the church as per the creeds.

We view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church, as begun in Pentecost. At no point did we ‘split’ or ‘found’ a new church - if we did, our church would be a mockery of Christ’s commands.

The idea that the Lutheran church is just another modern wackadoo (no slight intended on real wackadoos) church founded on some random dude and not Christ is something that we find shocking. Of course, we have to accept that our church needs to get it’s affairs in order so that no-one would look at us and think that.

Hi Ben,

I am aware that Lutherans believe themselves to be a ‘valid continuation’ of the Church that Christ founded at Pentecost. You say that ‘at no point did we ‘split’ or ‘found’ a new church – if we did, our church would be a mockery of Christ’s commands”. That’s putting a lot of chips on the table.

As we all know, the Reformation represented a HUGE discontinuity in terms of doctrinal teaching. If you claim that Lutheranism is a ‘valid continuation’, then, what specifically and exactly was it ‘continued’ from? In other words, what post Pentecostal group(s) can you point to which are doctrinal links between the Christians of the first few centuries and early 16th century Lutheranism? If none can be legitimately claimed, then Lutheranism is not a ‘valid continuation’ of the Church.

In addition, I don’t think that you can claim to be a ‘legitimate offshoot’ of the Roman Catholic Church either, because after all, the Formula of Concord make it very clear that the Catholic Church is, according to official Lutheran doctrine, an un-Christian institution. A ‘valid continuation’ of Christianity simply cannot ‘spring from’ what is according to Lutheranism, an un-Christian tradition. As I see it, the claim of a ‘valid continuation’ makes necessary revealing the specifics about the links between Lutheranism of the early 16th century and Christianity of Pentecost. Could you please supply the specifics?

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Adamski]

Do you have any example of church members of Mars Hill believing their sins are not sinful or of their members going around saying they are saved but still living in sin?

This is off topic but remarriage, contraception, masterbation for a couple

 

[Adamski]

I googled Mars Hill and couldn’t find anything like that. I did find this in the wiki article though:

*Singer-songwriter Mary Lambert formerly attended Mars Hill, but going to a church that teaches that sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a sin caused her to cry after church. The line “I’m not crying on Sundays” from Lambert and Macklemore’s song Same Love is her response to the teachings of the church. *

Ok how do you explain history for the lack of your church for 1500 years and the lack of a bunch of your religious beliefs for the first 1500 years after jesus

 

[dronald]

Ok how do you explain history for the lack of your church for 1500 years and the lack of a bunch of your religious beliefs for the first 1500 years after jesus

Because my beliefs would get me handed over to “secular authorities” until I recant. At which point I would be murdered if not.

 

[SirEwenii]

Ok how do you explain history for the lack of your church for 1500 years and the lack of a bunch of your religious beliefs for the first 1500 years after jesus

Unfortunately this is a bad argument as for some Church teachings, such as the Assumption, there is no historical evidence that they were believed for some centuries. First historical evidence of the belief of the assumption was in the 5th century and it first appeared in a book which has been declared as heretical. We have to believe on faith that the Church always believed this, just as the Protestant believes on faith that there were groups of Christians who always held to their beliefs despite there being scant historical evidence of this at certain times of history.

There is some historical evidence which could be used to support the idea that some Early Church Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura, but it is not at all clear. There is just as much evidence that the Church believed tradition was equally authoritative, unfortunately this evidence is no more obvious than what the protestants provide for sola scriptura.

Think the Holy Spirit testifies to the holiness and truth of the Catholic Church, not history.

 

[Peter_J]

Admittedly, the irony about our use of the Filioque is that we often speak out about the CC doing things without a truly ecumenical council, which of course is the case of Filioque.

Not to mention that the Filioque was inserted by Charlemagne’s people in defiance of the pope.

 

[Adamski]

Because my beliefs would get me handed over to “secular authorities” until I recant. At which point I would be murdered if not.

Then how do you explain how Ethiopia and Goa India where outside the influence of Rome and came up with very similar views on Christianity all the way from the first century to today