I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

[Per_Crucem]

I think you just hit the proverbial nail on the head. All Christians were Cartholic Christians until the 16th century or whenever it actually was that Martin Luther came on the scene.

The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East is not impressed.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Historical Evidence please that there was ever a Church before the XVI century apart the Orthodox Church who was not subdued to the pope, or the dogmas of the Catholic Church as the Veneration of Mary, the Eucharist, the Auricular Confession, etc.

And I know for long this story that protestants tell that Constantine Created the Catholic Church in the 300s, but I did not grasp it, although I did not see any historical evidence whatsoever that supported this idea, Constantine never claimed to create a new Church, in fact there are evidence of a “Catholic Church” before that, in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

Anyway, Let’s just for the sake of the argument that the Church corrupted in the 4th century, why the bishops did not protest and create another church? So there is another gap from 4th century to 16th century that the church corrupted?

Either way… If you admit that the Catholic Church was not all wrong… Then I think it is wrong some protestants condemn vehemently her until today, either way a protestant could not say she is wrong, unchristian and things like that.

Historical Evidence please that there was ever a Church before the XVI century apart the Orthodox Church who was not subdued to the pope, or the dogmas of the Catholic Church as the Veneration of Mary, the Eucharist, the Auricular Confession, etc.

Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Geez Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Mar Thoma Christian Church, Waldensians, Lollards, Hussites, etc.

And I know for long this story that protestants tell that Constantine Created the Catholic Church in the 300s, but I did not grasp it, although I did not see any historical evidence whatsoever that supported this idea, Constantine never claimed to create a new Church, in fact there are evidence of a “Catholic Church” before that, in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

No Protestant here is going to argue that.

Anyway, Let’s just for the sake of the argument that the Church corrupted in the 4th century, why the bishops did not protest and create another church? So there is another gap from 4th century to 16th century that the church corrupted?

There wasn’t a single church during that time. And there were many who tried to reform the church either from inside or our with varying degrees of success.

Either way… If you admit that the Catholic Church was not all wrong… Then I think it is wrong some protestants condemn vehemently her until today, either way a protestant could not say she is wrong, unchristian and things like that.

The RCC got many things right. To condemn it wholesale is silly.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Okay, now changing the subject.

Now how the Protestantism made a continuation of the Early Christian church once today protestant churches disagree in many things?

There are protestant churches who support abortion, others differ in the divinity of Christ, the existence of Hell, salvation and etc. They all claim to interpret the bible correctly and many of them seem faithful christians to me. I mean, they differ not only in secondary points, but I think they differ Which one of the protestants denominations truly continued the Early Christian Church?

The early church was rife with factionalism, strife, and divisions. Nothing like the model of unity we see today in Christianity.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Only God is infallible.

I’m very confused by this statement.

Were you infallible when you made this statement? If so, doesn’t that make the statement self-contradictory?

If you were fallible when you made the statement, why should I believe it? After all, if you were fallible, you could be wrong.

Aren’t people infallible when they make statements like 2 + 2 = 4? Wouldn’t you say the persons who penned scripture were infallible when they were writing it? If the persons who penned scripture were fallible while they were writing it, wouldn’t the Bible be liable to error?

I hope you mean only God is infallible at all times and under all circumstances, a statement with which no Catholic would have a problem.

 

[Memaw]

The early church was rife with factionalism, strife, and divisions. Nothing like the model of unity we see today in Christianity.

“Unity we see today in Christianity”??? I wonder what kind of glasses your looking through!! The only unity is in the Catholic Church! God Bless, memaw

 

[Memaw]

I’m very confused by this statement.

Were you infallible when you made this statement? If so, doesn’t that make the statement self-contradictory?

If you were fallible when you made the statement, why should I believe it? After all, if you were fallible, you could be wrong.

Aren’t people infallible when they make statements like 2 + 2 = 4? Wouldn’t you say the persons who penned scripture were infallible when they were writing it? If the persons who penned scripture were fallible while they were writing it, wouldn’t the Bible be liable to error?

I hope you mean only God is infallible at all times and under all circumstances, a statement with which no Catholic would have a problem.

The Holy Spirit is who keeps the Doctrine of the Catholic Church Infallible and infallibly protects the teachings of Christ’s Catholic Church though the Pope. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Kay_Cee]

The Holy Spirit is who keeps the Doctrine of the Catholic Church Infallible and infallibly protects the teachings of Christ’s Catholic Church though the Pope. God Bless, Memaw

Right. But my point is that people can also be infallible under certain circumstances.

My dictionary defines infallible as “absolutely trustworthy or true.” So, when I write 2 + 2 = 4, I am absolutely trustworthy and true, at least in writing that statement.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I’m very confused by this statement.

Were you infallible when you made this statement? If so, doesn’t that make the statement self-contradictory?

No. It’s an inerrant statement, not an infallible one.

If you were fallible when you made the statement, why should I believe it? After all, if you were fallible, you could be wrong.

Aren’t people infallible when they make statements like 2 + 2 = 4? Wouldn’t you say the persons who penned scripture were infallible when they were writing it? If the persons who penned scripture were fallible while they were writing it, wouldn’t the Bible be liable to error?

No. They are inerrant. Not infallible.

With respect to Scripture, the writers were fallible, but the Holy Spirit (God) who inspired it, is not. If it were dependant upon them as human writers, then yes, it would be fallible.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m very confused by this statement.

Were you infallible when you made this statement? If so, doesn’t that make the statement self-contradictory?

If you were fallible when you made the statement, why should I believe it? After all, if you were fallible, you could be wrong.

Aren’t people infallible when they make statements like 2 + 2 = 4? Wouldn’t you say the persons who penned scripture were infallible when they were writing it? If the persons who penned scripture were fallible while they were writing it, wouldn’t the Bible be liable to error?

I hope you mean only God is infallible at all times and under all circumstances, a statement with which no Catholic would have a problem.

I think you’re confused about the definition of the word infallible, which concerns the capacity for error, not whether a particular statement or utterance is true or not: “incapable of making mistakes or being wrong,” “never failing; always effective.” No sadly, people are not infallible. Believing so is, in essence, the “original sin” (Gn. 3:5).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The early church was rife with factionalism, strife, and divisions. Nothing like the model of unity we see today in Christianity.

Sometimes I wonder whether people have actually read the New Testament. What? The disciples were confused? There were arguments? Political posturing? Apostles going their separate ways when the couldn’t get along?

 

[TWJ]

The various churches were ALL created based on ‘FAITH’. The Word of God, however, is OWNED BY GOD. This is why we must match ‘faiths’ to The Word of God. If the ‘faith’ doesn’t match The Word, then the ‘faith’ must contain errors. We are judged against ‘every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’. Any ‘changes’ to God’s Word (including erroneous practices), not specifically approved by God, makes us ‘false prophets’, and we know what will happen to these people.

 

[devonsams]

Okay but you protestants are ignoring the point that it by logic mean that the orthodox church is not the true church too! The Orthodox also claim to be the infallible church of Christ, which means that it doesn’t help a bit with your explanation to know that the Orthodox existed before, because the orthodox ( will also be wrong ) in the end.

 

[devonsams]

Now Pay Attention, I would like a Protestant Could explain to me with a TIMELINE:

The Catholic Church
0-33 A.D Jesus preached the Gospel, founded his unique Church on Peter, Jesus died in the cross, ressurected in the 3rd day.
33-100 A.D. The Gospels Were Written, Paul Preached the Gospels, the Catholic Church existed this time.
100-300s A.D. The Catholic Church preserved the Gospels, and the bishops of the Catholic Church chose the Cannon of the Bible
300-1500s A.d. The Catholic Church with the authority of the pope during all this centuries existed, influenced all the Western Civilization, preserved its Dogmas, from the transubstantiation, veneration to mary, infallibility etc. and the Church made the Council of Trent to make it clear its own dogmas.
1500s-Today A.D. The Catholic Church still stand up with an apostolic succession from eter.

Protestant Worldview
0-33 A.d. Jesus preached the Gospels… etc. etc. his words about “thou art peter and on this rock i will build my church” were taken out of context during centuries on.
33-100 A.D. The Gospels were written, Paul preached the Gospels.
100-300s A.D. “The Western Church” preserved and made the cannon of the bible, and Constantine founded the Catholic Church putting and End to “The Church”
300s-1500 A.D. The Catholic Church which is not the true church of Christ and the Orthodox existed from Centuries and centuries later, which means that Christ made hidden his true doctrine from centuries with false Churches who claim infallibility the authority of the pope and so on.
Today - There are protestants claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is Wrong, they clearly opposes to its teaching, and they try to convert people away from her.
Explain to me how can this make sense?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Okay but you protestants are ignoring the point that it by logic mean that the orthodox church is not the true church too! The Orthodox also claim to be the infallible church of Christ, which means that it doesn’t help a bit with your explanation to know that the Orthodox existed before, because the orthodox ( will also be wrong ) in the end.

The problem is in your basic premise that one particular church out of the array of churches with valid claims to apostolic origins have some exclusive monopoly on the truth and the rest don’t—or that there exists only one “true church” and the rest aren’t. That’s not a basic assumption that most Protestants I know would agree with. It’s not a matter of “all right” or “all wrong”; the Church has always been pretty diverse and has never completely agreed on much beyond, say, the Creeds. I think this has been pointed out a few times already.

 

[SteveVH]

I think you think we think that the RC is completely false. We don’t believe that at all. The RC teaches enough truth for folks who are RC to achieve salvation.

Thanks for that. Very big of you.

 

[JonNC]

Okay but you protestants are ignoring the point that it by logic mean that the orthodox church is not the true church too! The Orthodox also claim to be the infallible church of Christ, which means that it doesn’t help a bit with your explanation to know that the Orthodox existed before, because the orthodox ( will also be wrong ) in the end.

Of course Orthodoxy is part of the true Church. Why would you think otherwise? Whether or not they are in error in some way or another doesn’t exclude them from being part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Christ on Pentecost.
There is only one true Church. They are members. Catholics are members. Lutherans are members. And so are many others.
Being wrong about something is quite a human thing. It is precisely why there is grace.
The Church, OTOH, is found where believers are gathered around word and sacrament.

Jon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Protestant Worldview
0-33 A.d. Jesus preached the Gospels… etc. etc. his words about “thou art peter and on this rock i will build my church” were taken out of context during centuries on.
33-100 A.D. The Gospels were written, Paul preached the Gospels.
100-300s A.D. “The Western Church” preserved and made the cannon of the bible, and Constantine founded the Catholic Church putting and End to “The Church”
300s-1500 A.D. The Catholic Church which is not the true church of Christ and the Orthodox existed from Centuries and centuries later, which means that Christ made hidden his true doctrine from centuries with false Churches who claim infallibility the authority of the pope and so on.
Today - There are protestants claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is Wrong, they clearly opposes to its teaching, and they try to convert people away from her.
Explain to me how can this make sense?

Since I asked for your sources behind these theories before and you refused to give them, ignored rebuttals from various posters, and “changed the subject” I’m going to have to conclude that this is simply a concocted strawman argument on your part. I don’t think anyone would say that this is a consensus among Protestants or anything approaching a “Protestant Worldview”. (Protestantism is very diverse, so “Protestant” is probably a word you should avoid.) Maybe someone out there in the world believes this, but I have no way of knowing since you won’t provide your sources and won’t be specific.

 

[JonNC]

Now Pay Attention, I would like a Protestant Could explain to me with a TIMELINE:

The Catholic Church
0-33 A.D Jesus preached the Gospel, founded his unique Church on Peter, Jesus died in the cross, ressurected in the 3rd day.
33-100 A.D. The Gospels Were Written, Paul Preached the Gospels, the Catholic Church existed this time.
100-300s A.D. The Catholic Church preserved the Gospels, and the bishops of the Catholic Church chose the Cannon of the Bible
300-1500s A.d. The Catholic Church with the authority of the pope during all this centuries existed, influenced all the Western Civilization, preserved its Dogmas, from the transubstantiation, veneration to mary, infallibility etc. and the Church made the Council of Trent to make it clear its own dogmas.
1500s-Today A.D. The Catholic Church still stand up with an apostolic succession from eter.

Protestant Worldview
0-33 A.d. Jesus preached the Gospels… etc. etc. his words about “thou art peter and on this rock i will build my church” were taken out of context during centuries on.
33-100 A.D. The Gospels were written, Paul preached the Gospels.
100-300s A.D. “The Western Church” preserved and made the cannon of the bible, and Constantine founded the Catholic Church putting and End to “The Church”
300s-1500 A.D. The Catholic Church which is not the true church of Christ and the Orthodox existed from Centuries and centuries later, which means that Christ made hidden his true doctrine from centuries with false Churches who claim infallibility the authority of the pope and so on.
Today - There are protestants claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is Wrong, they clearly opposes to its teaching, and they try to convert people away from her.
Explain to me how can this make sense?

Of course the Catholic Church is part of the true Church. There may be some that think it is not, but Lutherans and many others should not be found among their ranks.

Think about you date: 300 AD. The Nicene Creed post-dates 300, and there are vast numbers of non-Catholic Christians that confess this creed every Sunday.

The premise of the Great Apostasy, from our POV, is nonsense.

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

Now Pay Attention, I would like a Protestant Could explain to me with a TIMELINE:

The Catholic Church
0-33 A.D Jesus preached the Gospel, founded his unique Church on Peter, Jesus died in the cross, ressurected in the 3rd day.

Begging the question. You are assuming what you seek to prove (that the Church is founded on Peter over and above the prophets and the other apostles; a view shared only in your own communion).

33-100 A.D. The Gospels Were Written, Paul Preached the Gospels, the Catholic Church existed this time.

Sure

100-300s A.D. The Catholic Church preserved the Gospels, and the bishops of the Catholic Church chose the Cannon of the Bible

God chose the canon, due to the fact that He inspired some books and not others. Bishops chose nothing. Don’t read Dan Brown novels. Even Vatican I acknowledges this fact.

Protestant Worldview
0-33 A.d. Jesus preached the Gospels… etc. etc. his words about “thou art peter and on this rock i will build my church” were taken out of context during centuries on.
33-100 A.D. The Gospels were written, Paul preached the Gospels.
100-300s A.D. “The Western Church” preserved and made the cannon of the bible, and Constantine founded the Catholic Church putting and End to “The Church”
300s-1500 A.D. The Catholic Church which is not the true church of Christ and the Orthodox existed from Centuries and centuries later, which means that Christ made hidden his true doctrine from centuries with false Churches who claim infallibility the authority of the pope and so on.
Today - There are protestants claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is Wrong, they clearly opposes to its teaching, and they try to convert people away from her.
Explain to me how can this make sense?

Uh, no.

 

[SteveVH]

Of course the Catholic Church is part of the true Church. There may be some that think it is not, but Lutherans and many others should not be found among their ranks.

Think about you date: 300 AD. The Nicene Creed post-dates 300, and there are vast numbers of non-Catholic Christians that confess this creed every Sunday.

But Jon, if vast numbers of non-Catholic Christians are professing a belief in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and yet have separated themselves from the very Church from whence the creed originated it seems inherently contradictory. My comments are especially directed to faith traditions that have strayed far from their roots, having rejected nearly everything the Catholic Church teaches and practices; the liturgy, the sacraments…and the “communion of saints” which is outright rejected, though professed.

I guess for my comments to be valid I would have to know the specific beliefs of every denomination that professes the Nicene Creed. It just struck me as strange to have a bunch of divided faith communities professing a belief in one united church.

I’d be interested in your comments.

Thanks.

Steve