How do protestants explain history

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the Church of God in Christ, started with a group of people that were disfellowshipped from the Baptist church.

I’m not exactly sure what that group’s quarrel with the Baptist church was, but I know a couple areas that I may have a problem with, if I was there.

It may have been an argument over doctrine, but I think the main thing came from the C.O.G.I.C.observance of the Holy Ghost.

(1906)
 
This is a good question.
Click to expand...
I have wondered exactly why certain churches call themselves the first, second, or whatever number.
Click to expand...
It can’t be because they feel that they are the first church ever founded.
Click to expand...
Wilborn Temple, could have been the very first Church of God in Christ in the area, at the time it was founded.
 
Actually, when I say I was Protestant, I really mean Charismatic/Pentecostal non-denom. Never really was a mainline Protstant-almost did a LONG time ago but never panned out. Like you mentioned, siamus2k13, most of these fellowships came from mainline Protestant denoms or were kicked out or from revivals, right? The present day ministry of the Holy Spirit is what attracted me to those fellowships. There’s not exactly a lot (or any!) Charismatic Catholic churches/fellowships in these parts and I often think that’s what probably best describes me with my “checkered church past”!

Paul,
I now use the NAB about exclusively. In the past few years I’ve come to trust the teaching authority of the Catholic Church more than ever in my life. As previously mentioned, in my non-Catholic years I used the NKJV the most and not long ago was rather taken aback to discover most those on the translation committee were Baptists. No offense to any Baptists-nothing wrong with that, but since the start of my reversion, definitely wanted to stick to Catholic translations, and due to all of the recently mentioned reasons on this thread! I used to think the NKJV was more ecumenical than what it turned out to be. Nevertheless, it is a very good translation and accurate imho, although it lacks the Apocrypha. I finally read all of that 2 years ago-I hadn’t before even though I had read the OT through 5-6 times and the NT 30 besides constant study. Yep, I was quite a Bible thumper for many years. Anyway, to me the Apocrypha read the same as any OT book. I read the NAB of this too.

My folks always had an old DR version and in my youth tried reading it a few times but made the common mistake of starting at Gen. 1:1 and thinking I’d try to read it straight through, never getting past Exodus. In my early 20’s, I wanted to get one of those “easy to read” Bibles because I wanted to read the Bible but couldn’t handle the DR, so I got a genuine “hippy Bible” - The Way (Living Bible Translation). This did help me to read it and that was the first one I read. Didn’t understand much of it but got me started anyway. That is also a paraphrase but not as loose as “The Message”. After graduating to more mainstream versions (AMP, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NAS, etc.) I realized TLB (The Living Bible) read very mainstream Protestant in places.

For now, I’m sticking to the NAB. With all the mass amounts of various Catholic devotions I have now where I pretty much had the “Bible only” for so many years for my devotional life (besides prayer and church attendance), I don’t read it quite as much as I used to, although I do just about every day anyway with my daily Catholic readings. I think it’s pretty amazing the way so many non-Catholic Christian churches think Catholics have little to nothing to do with the Bible when every Holy Mass is filled with Scripture and the last non-Catholic church I was into would literally have 1 to maybe 6 VERSES read per service!

Anyway, sorry to go on and on about me so I’ll cut this off for now.

Blessings to all,Catholic or not,

HA
 
siamus2k13 said:
The Holy Spirit is an interesting person.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be more logical that the Holy Spirit moved the apostles and those apostles appointed other who appointed others (which it says in the bible) and we have pope Francis today
 
There’s been Charismatic renewals in many denominations. I don’t think the Holy Spirit only moves in just one. "The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”-John 3:8

I know way too many people who are definitely filled with the Spirit who don’t have a shred of Catholicism. While I personally embrace the Catholic Church, it’s not the only church. The Holy Spirit isn’t limited!

blessings,
HA
 
glendab said:
I have a friend who is Episcopalian who considers herself a good Christian and every once in a while I itch to ask her how she feels about the origins of her church with it’s murderous past and the fact that for 250 her church literally outlawed Catholicism in her country and persecuted Catholics in all her colonies as well. That means it was illegal to be Catholic in English Colonies folks. Yeppers - here in the good ole USA until we were a Nation freed from Colonial oppression, if you were Catholic you were an illegal person. There is lots to think about there.

I haven’t yet asked her how her church explains what they did to Catholics when they started but it would be interesting to hear. I don’t think our friendship would remain if I asked her. 😦

Glenda
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the obsession with the bloody history of Anglicanism when Catholicism has a bloody history of its own. Anglicans are the most Catholic of Protestants in this as in other respects.

If you can be Catholic even though the Catholic Church handed people over to be burned at the stake, surely you can understand how she can be Anglican. (And since national churches in Anglicanism are more independent than in Catholicism, the Episcopal Church doesn’t have any direct responsibility for what the C of E did.) It’s a weird question coming from a Catholic. All Christian churches that have had power have abused that power. Catholics and Anglicans probably have the worst records.

Also, if you want to take the route many on this forum take of arguing that the persecution of heretics was the fault of the state and was really political, that works far better for Anglicans. (Of course, the subservience of church to state is the real weak point of Anglicanism compared to Catholicism.) After all, the Catholics who were killed by Anglicans were killed as traitors, not heretics. (I’m not claiming that this wasn’t religious persecution–it was.)

Edwin
 
The history truly is terrible…

4th lateran council - Canon 3:

As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues…

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith…

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land…

Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance.

I’m exhausted; but there’s many little quotes in there that are ridiculous and not practiced or condoned by Catholics today. Why? Because the power is gone, and rightly so.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
 
well, there is all that, too! 😉

Does this show that no religion is perfect?

Very interesting discussion/thread. Lots for me to learn yet. Keep posting!

Blessings,
HA
 
Dronald…interesting…but what is the context?

I was reading about the Dark Ages…which wasn’t for believers, just the darkness coming in from the barbarians invading europe. The monasteries were beginning and supporting the local population, sharing their education with them. My son has the book right now so I cannot quote from it.

I studied beginning Canon Law…but again, you have to see the context. Canon Law is constantly being updated to fit the times people live in. You really should be studying it, kudos to you for looking at it, but with a priest.
 
I wonder what how Baptist and other Evangelicals deal with the fact that it was Ulrich Zwingli who was the first person to ever really deny that baptism was necessary for salvation. The belief that we need baptism goes back to the apostles and most historians can agree with me on that. We have both the Bible and history on our side, and the Evangelicals have man made traditions on their side.
 
KathleenGee said:
Dronald…interesting…but what is the context?

I was reading about the Dark Ages…which wasn’t for believers, just the darkness coming in from the barbarians invading europe. The monasteries were beginning and supporting the local population, sharing their education with them. My son has the book right now so I cannot quote from it.

I studied beginning Canon Law…but again, you have to see the context. Canon Law is constantly being updated to fit the times people live in. You really should be studying it, kudos to you for looking at it, but with a priest.
Click to expand...
The context is that Jesus and the Apostles brought truth and the Church of that time spoke unwittingly against it. Although I do find it humorous when the Catholics here try to defend that it’s okay for the Church to exterminate heretics, take all their stuff, and using the Bible to support it; I really don’t want to have to go to Biblical text to prove I’m right.

I think most with an open mind can see that the Church had it wrong at that time.
 
whoisdiss said:
I wonder what how Baptist and other Evangelicals deal with the fact that it was Ulrich Zwingli who was the first person to ever really deny that baptism was necessary for salvation. The belief that we need baptism goes back to the apostles and most historians can agree with me on that. We have both the Bible and history on our side, and the Evangelicals have man made traditions on their side.
Click to expand...
Hi whoisdiss: I am thinking that most Protestants, Baptist and evangelicals generally do not take real history into consideration, although they claim to be Bible only followers, so someone like Zwingli who as you so rightly stated was the first to deny Baptism as necessary for salvation does not enter into their thinking. They I think see someone like Zwingli as a hero of the Reformation among others, not or never looking into the history of what this man and others really did to change the scope of Christianity by breaking away from the Catholic Church and coming up with new doctrines and or making new ones to fit their own preconceptions of what Scripture says and means.
Code: 
         In the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 16-20 it clearly states that Jesus told the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now if it was not necessary for salvation then why would Jesus command the Apostles to do this? It would make no sense otherwise. It seems to me from reading many of the posts as well as reading history that generally speaking most evangelical Protestants as well as Baptists use the Jesus prayer in that one takes Jesus as their personal savior in order to be saved. Some will ask a person if they have back slide to redo the oath in order to be saved.

        There are those who do study early Church history, but always seems to come up with new and novel interpretations as what that early Church history says and what also what the early Church Fathers said and wrote in order to justify their reasons as to why they do not accept what the Catholic Church teaches.


      I think that there is a reason as to why they are called Protestants and that is because they protest the Catholic Church and its teachings. There is no other way around it since if they are not protesting then why remain outside of the Catholic Church. Sadly, there are those denominations that fill the heart of their followers with hatred of the Catholic Church and the faith it teaches. All this from their own misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Scripture. In the end all one can do is pray for them that they see the light of truth that the Catholic Church teaches.
 
I just had to add some things I was told as a kid in an independent protestant church. I think someone bought a “do-it-yourself” church kit and started the church I attended. Here’s what I was taught about history. I swear this is true although I don’t blame you if you don’t believe me. Go ahead and laugh, I am.

John the Baptist was the first Baptist.

Jesus preached from the King James Version of the Bible.

Jesus wasn’t really Jewish and established the Baptist religion.

If Mary said no God would have just picked someone else.

Our church didn’t come from the Catholic church. It was a small group that wasn’t written about.

OK back to REAL history 😃
 
Irishgal49 said:
I just had to add some things I was told as a kid in an independent protestant church. I think someone bought a “do-it-yourself” church kit and started the church I attended. Here’s what I was taught about history. I swear this is true although I don’t blame you if you don’t believe me. Go ahead and laugh, I am.

John the Baptist was the first Baptist.

Jesus preached from the King James Version of the Bible.

Jesus wasn’t really Jewish and established the Baptist religion.

If Mary said no God would have just picked someone else.

Our church didn’t come from the Catholic church. It was a small group that wasn’t written about.

OK back to REAL history 😃
Click to expand...
Hi: I heard that before. I also heard that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus then it is good enough for me. Of course the church you attended obviously did not know history of the early church or decided to change the history to reflect their own beliefs.
 
dronald said:
The context is that Jesus and the Apostles brought truth and the Church of that time spoke unwittingly against it. Although I do find it humorous when the Catholics here try to defend that it’s okay for the Church to exterminate heretics, take all their stuff, and using the Bible to support it; I really don’t want to have to go to Biblical text to prove I’m right.

I think most with an open mind can see that the Church had it wrong at that time.
Click to expand...
Sigh… Is this about just being right?

Can you please read the following:

Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults from the Past.

Confession of Sins and Asking for Forgiveness.

Tertio Millennio Adveniente.

And please find it in your heart to stop pointing at the plank in our eye? Or do I have to hunt down how many times you have posted about this to prove I’m right? 😉 (Sorry had to throw a little jab)
 
spina1953 said:
Hi whoisdiss: I am thinking that most Protestants, Baptist and evangelicals generally do not take real history into consideration, although they claim to be Bible only followers, so someone like Zwingli who as you so rightly stated was the first to deny Baptism as necessary for salvation does not enter into their thinking. They I think see someone like Zwingli as a hero of the Reformation among others, not or never looking into the history of what this man and others really did to change the scope of Christianity by breaking away from the Catholic Church and coming up with new doctrines and or making new ones to fit their own preconceptions of what Scripture says and means.
Code: 
         In the Gospel of Matthew, 28: 16-20 it clearly states that Jesus told the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now if it was not necessary for salvation then why would Jesus command the Apostles to do this? It would make no sense otherwise. It seems to me from reading many of the posts as well as reading history that generally speaking most evangelical Protestants as well as Baptists use the Jesus prayer in that one takes Jesus as their personal savior in order to be saved. Some will ask a person if they have back slide to redo the oath in order to be saved.

        There are those who do study early Church history, but always seems to come up with new and novel interpretations as what that early Church history says and what also what the early Church Fathers said and wrote in order to justify their reasons as to why they do not accept what the Catholic Church teaches.


      I think that there is a reason as to why they are called Protestants and that is because they protest the Catholic Church and its teachings. There is no other way around it since if they are not protesting then why remain outside of the Catholic Church. Sadly, there are those denominations that fill the heart of their followers with hatred of the Catholic Church and the faith it teaches. All this from their own misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Scripture. In the end all one can do is pray for them that they see the light of truth that the Catholic Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Tertullian was the first; and many Saints after him who had Bishops as fathers weren’t Baptized until their 30’s. Peter Waldo carried on the claim, and his followers in the midst of the persecution that I’ve already posted about.

On top of this; even Catholics don’t believe that water Baptism is necessary for Salvation. Both our Church’s accept that it’s not the water that saves you.
 
dronald said:
Tertullian was the first; and many Saints after him who had Bishops as fathers weren’t Baptized until their 30’s. Peter Waldo carried on the claim, and his followers in the midst of the persecution that I’ve already posted about.

On top of this; even Catholics don’t believe that water Baptism is necessary for Salvation. Both our Church’s accept that it’s not the water that saves you.
Click to expand...
Exceptions not the rule/norm.
 
What??

Our baptisms are water.

Do you know the rite of baptism is Catholic and that protestants are being baptized in to the Church? That is why we refer to Protestant as our separated brethren.

There is baptism of the blood…and desire…both extraordinary cases…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top