If Protestantism Is True

[stewstew03]

God made us thinking and curious creatures. Since God and this universe are such mysteries, there was certain to develop a huge array of different religions. This shows hat humankind was seeking to understand our Creator and the Lord’s creation.

 The notion that there is only one true church and that all other religion falls short is the belief of millions of Catholics. Fine. As for me personally, I think we all fall short because we are limited by our status as creatures. Those who want to say that the Lord started one church and the rest are inferior - go ahead. I suspect that some Protestants, and certainly many Muslims and others feel similiarly.

 As for my own view - and I know that some will dismiss this as some form of egotism to think independently in this fashion - I suspect that we all are wrong, that when we reach eternal life we will find Matt. 25 confirmed, that we will discover that (as Christ said) what matters is not doctrine, sacraments, membership in some church, etc. No, what matters then is how we expressed our love for God and for one another, by serving one another. 

 For those who want to think they and their church alone have hold of the essential truth, go for it. I'm sure it helps provide a sense of security in this huge and mysterious world. What does trouble me, however, is when this honest conviction turns into arrogance, hubris and silly judging. Matt. 7:1-2.  Surely, a key ingredient of genuine Christianity is humility - plus an awe before God that acknowledges that he is well beyond human understanding.

 Too often religion is a barrier when true religion should be a bridge.

You’ve just defined “genuine Christianity” as a religion that is humble and God-fearing. At the same time, you’ve also just created a barrier to those who struggle with humility, and those who are still learning to fear God; those folks are obviously inferior to “genuine Christians.”

So much for bridge-building, eh?

I imagine that this is how new denominations spring forth:

“Come, let us start a genuine Christian church…”

(one generation later)

“This church has lost its way. We need to start a brand new genuine Christian church…”

(Rinse, repeat)

:hey_bud:

 

[Taestron]

Because, with all due respect, you’re confusing the relationship between the Church and its members with the relationship between Church and Scripture. Ironically, this is the same basic confusion that Protestants have historically made, so clearly Protestants shouldn’t be blamed too harshly

The fact that the Church has authority over me with regard to how *I *interpret Scripture does not affect the Church’s relationship to Scripture. Why would you bring this in as if it were relevant? The Church has authority over me because the Church listens to the Word of God. It isn’t that the Church has authority over me whether it agrees with Scripture or not (which is the Protestant caricature of the Catholic position) but that the Church has authority over me because it is guided by the Spirit in listening to the Word of God (of which Scripture is the written form, not the only form).

Although I agree with this statement entirely, I wonder at its practicality. See if this line of reasoning makes sense. Scripture has authority over the Church. The Church has authority over an interpretation of Scripture. And Scripture can only be experienced along with interpretation. So therefore, there is no meaningful way to experience Scripture without coming under the authority of the Church. So in effect, it does not seem that claiming the Church serves the Word of God does claim anything meaningful.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy5
The notion that there is only one true church and that all other religion falls short is the belief of millions of Catholics. Fine. As for me personally, I think we all fall short because we are limited by our status as creatures

.

The “notion” there is only one true church? Well how many “true” churches did Jesus found? On the contrary,the notion any church is as good as any other is false,no matter how much one wishes to deny it.

Us falling short due to our sinful nature has nothing to do with the ONE Church Christ founded. For the life of me I do not understand why it is so hard to understand Christ founded and left ONE church.

 

[Lord_Simpson]

Why do you want to be catholic? If you want to be christian I’d go for a more liberal form from how you’ve made out your husband and also its best not to jump into things after reading one book (unless its the bible) especially if its something as important as your religion.

 

[stewstew03]

.

The “notion” there is only one true church? Well how many “true” churches did Jesus found? On the contrary,the notion any church is as good as any other is false,no matter how much one wishes to deny it.

Us falling short due to our sinful nature has nothing to do with the ONE Church Christ founded. For the life of me I do not understand why it is so hard to understand Christ founded and left ONE church.

Nicea, clearly the one true church is that invisible body of true, genuine Christians. What’s not to understand…?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, clearly the one true church is that invisible body of true, genuine Christians. What’s not to understand…?

 

[Roy5]

.

The “notion” there is only one true church? Well how many “true” churches did Jesus found? On the contrary,the notion any church is as good as any other is false,no matter how much one wishes to deny it.

Us falling short due to our sinful nature has nothing to do with the ONE Church Christ founded. For the life of me I do not understand why it is so hard to understand Christ founded and left ONE church.

 Jesus gave us the gospel, based on love for God and one another. The idea that this man of Galilee, who had no place to lay his head, established an all-male hierarchy such as developed over the centuries, with its medieval trappings and trimmings, with its ornate vestments, with all the precise pomp and ceremony I have seen at church and on EWTN - well, you get the idea. 

  I've always foiund it interesting that just after Peter's confession - a few verses later - Jesus says to Peter, "Keep thee behind me Satan!" (Matt. 16:23, Mark 8:33)

  I believe that the Church, like the rest of the social order, needs to progress as the world changes. Too often, as in the case of Galileo, it greets all suggestions of significant change with quotations from ancient Church Fathers who mostly thought the world was flat, who believed that heaven was above the clouds and that hell was inside the earth, who traced disease to demons or God's punishment, who considered women an inferior and temptress gender, who treasured virginity and celibacy above motherhood and marriage, etc. I have read many Church Fathers - brilliant for their time, but much of what they said was based on the ignorance of their time, too.

 When Catholicism ordains women (at least Deacons), allows priests to marry, demonstrates more sincere appreciation of other religions (including non-Christians), stops claiming to be the one true Church, permits more democracy within its ranks, allows more freedom of thought and expression, places less emphasis on precise liturgy - etc. - when these and other advances are made, I will rejoice and be glad. 

 What most people need are a few good courses on the scriptures at such open-minded, top-notch seminaries as Harvard, Yale, Boston U, Duke, Union, etc. They would provide scholarship that can give a whole new outlook and understanding.  'Nuff sed. 

  Meanwhile, God bless everybody. I already rejoice in the freedom we have as Americans to think and let think. And I certainly salute the thousands of faithful priests and nuns who devote (and have devoted) their lives to helping others. They represent the best in Christianity, and may God especially bless and guide them!

 

[CopticChristian]

Jesus gave us the gospel, based on love for God and one another. **The idea that this man of Galilee, who had no place to lay his head, established an all-male hierarchy such as developed over the centuries, with its medieval trappings and trimmings, with its ornate vestments, with all the precise pomp and ceremony I have seen at church and on EWTN - well, you get the idea. **

I’ve always foiund it interesting that just after Peter’s confession - a few verses later - Jesus says to Peter, “Keep thee behind me Satan!” (Matt. 16:23, Mark 8:33)

  I believe that the Church, like the rest of the social order, needs to progress as the world changes. Too often, as in the case of Galileo, it greets all suggestions of significant change with quotations from ancient Church Fathers who mostly thought the world was flat, who believed that heaven was above the clouds and that hell was inside the earth, who traced disease to demons or God's punishment, who considered women an inferior and temptress gender, who treasured virginity and celibacy above motherhood and marriage, etc. I have read many Church Fathers - brilliant for their time, but much of what they said was based on the ignorance of their time, too.

 **When Catholicism ordains women (at least Deacons), allows priests to marry, demonstrates more sincere appreciation of other religions (including non-Christians), stops claiming to be the one true Church, permits more democracy within its ranks, allows more freedom of thought and expression, places less emphasis on precise liturgy - etc. - when these and other advances are made, I will rejoice and be glad. **

 What most people need are a few good courses on the scriptures at such open-minded, top-notch seminaries as Harvard, Yale, Boston U, Duke, Union, etc. They would provide scholarship that can give a whole new outlook and understanding.  'Nuff sed. 

  Meanwhile, God bless everybody. I already rejoice in the freedom we have as Americans to think and let think. And I certainly salute the thousands of faithful priests and nuns who devote (and have devoted) their lives to helping others. They represent the best in Christianity, and may God especially bless and guide them!

Roy,

You are not suggesting that Jesus started EWTN with your run on sentence are you?

Now I have some sad news…you will not rejoice and be glad. Mighty Casey has struck out…Gaudium et Spes…The Church in the Modern World…the World Changes…but the Church is the Body of Christ…the same Yesterday, Today, and tommorrow…

Maybe you can find something else to rejoice and be glad about.

 

[stewstew03]

Jesus gave us the gospel, based on love for God and one another. The idea that this man of Galilee, who had no place to lay his head, established an all-male hierarchy such as developed over the centuries, with its medieval trappings and trimmings, with its ornate vestments, with all the precise pomp and ceremony I have seen at church and on EWTN - well, you get the idea.

  I've always foiund it interesting that just after Peter's confession - a few verses later - Jesus says to Peter, "Keep thee behind me Satan!" (Matt. 16:23, Mark 8:33)

  I believe that the Church, like the rest of the social order, needs to progress as the world changes. Too often, as in the case of Galileo, it greets all suggestions of significant change with quotations from ancient Church Fathers who mostly thought the world was flat, who believed that heaven was above the clouds and that hell was inside the earth, who traced disease to demons or God's punishment, who considered women an inferior and temptress gender, who treasured virginity and celibacy above motherhood and marriage, etc. I have read many Church Fathers - brilliant for their time, but much of what they said was based on the ignorance of their time, too.

 When Catholicism ordains women (at least Deacons), allows priests to marry, demonstrates more sincere appreciation of other religions (including non-Christians), stops claiming to be the one true Church, permits more democracy within its ranks, allows more freedom of thought and expression, places less emphasis on precise liturgy - etc. - when these and other advances are made, I will rejoice and be glad. 

 What most people need are a few good courses on the scriptures at such open-minded, top-notch seminaries as Harvard, Yale, Boston U, Duke, Union, etc. They would provide scholarship that can give a whole new outlook and understanding.  'Nuff sed. 

  Meanwhile, God bless everybody. I already rejoice in the freedom we have as Americans to think and let think. And I certainly salute the thousands of faithful priests and nuns who devote (and have devoted) their lives to helping others. They represent the best in Christianity, and may God especially bless and guide them!

Yes, the Church is stuck in the 1st Century. I thank God for that.

 

[JonNC]

I mean, why would God create the RC church only to make a hole new sect of Christianity with 33,000 denominations?

Let me state without any equivocation that I believe in the necessity of unity of the Church Militant. No ifs, ands, or buts. Christ instituted His Church. His Church can be found where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. The holy Spirit resides firmly in the Catholic Church. He is found in the Lutheran Church, and many others.
Recognizing that fact, ISTM is an important first step to unity, and it is not an excuse to remain in division. For those of us on this side of the Tiber, regardless of communion, if being in division is something to relish, and not something to overcome, then the Reformation is, indeed, a tragic deformation.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Although I agree with this statement entirely, I wonder at its practicality. See if this line of reasoning makes sense. Scripture has authority over the Church. The Church has authority over an interpretation of Scripture. And Scripture can only be experienced along with interpretation. So therefore, there is no meaningful way to experience Scripture without coming under the authority of the Church. So in effect, it does not seem that claiming the Church serves the Word of God does claim anything meaningful.

Well, that’s certainly the standard Protestant critique, and I think it’s a serious one. Clearly many Catholics find it convincing enough that they see no point using the language I’ve been using.

But I disagree for several reasons.

First of all, it’s important to clarify that we obey the Church because the Church listens to the Word of God. We might do exactly the same things as if we didn’t make that caveat, but the reason why would still be important.

But in the second place, I think it does make a practical difference. Many conservative Catholics really do advocate, in principle, a kind of blind obedience–as if your reason takes you to the point of submission to the Church and then you just hand the reins over the Magisterium. I think this is destructive nonsense. Actually no one really behaves this way–well, maybe some extremely disturbed people do. In fact we are all (at least all people with anything like a normal capacity for rational decision-making) continually engaging (though usually subconsciously) in a “reality check” with regard to our beliefs. If our beliefs stop making sense, we abandon them–not right away (if we are serious and committed people) and not without making serious efforts to make sense of them. But if over and over again what you believe has trouble explaining reality, at some point you’re going to find a better “paradigm.” That’s just how belief works.

So saying that the Church has authority over my interpretation doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t care if every time I picked up the Bible it clashed with what the Church said. If Catholicism didn’t make sense of the Bible, Catholicism wouldn’t be true. Giving the Church authority over my interpretation means that

a) I start from the Church’s perspective and only question it if there is an obvious dissonance; and
b) there would need to be not just one obvious dissonance but a whole series of glaring and obvious dissonances, plus a better alternative paradigm.

In other words, accepting a certain authority doesn’t mean that there’s no way you could ever be persuaded to reject that authority.

This, of course, puts me at odds with a lot of contemporary Catholic apologetics, and even with Newman to some extent, which matters a lot more since I love and respect Newman deeply!

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m defending the position of Dei Verbum, in which “Tradition” (note the large “T”) goes along with “Scripture” as the Word of God to which the Church is obedient.

Right

The whole idea that “tradition” is interchangeable with “Church” in these discussions is an artifact of Reformation-era polemic.

Agree’d

We’re not arguing about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, but between Scripture (which is the written, but not the only, form of the Word of God) and the Church. Two completely different things.

Correct, I hear you.

The Protestant argument is that once the canon had been completed, and once the apostles themselves had died, our only certain access to apostolic Tradition is Scripture…

And whats your thoughts? What you stated below here or do you have another thought on this?

Nor do classical Protestants argue for either notion. The Reformers in fact taught that preaching is a form of the Word of God–just not infallible. And of course not all Jesus’ teachings were reduced to writing–the question is whether we now have any of Jesus’ teachings that weren’t reduced to writing…
The only possible example of a specific such teaching I can think of is a clearly millenialist teaching found in Irenaeus, citing Papias. I think it would be fairly hard for Catholics to accept this as a genuine teaching of Jesus…

I know, I follow. We touched on this somewhere.

Of course one can argue in a general way that doctrines such as the Real presence or the sacrificial priesthood were taught more clearly by Jesus in oral form than in anything we have in writing. …

Tough, arguement. I assume your talking OT and NT in context/content? Especially on-line.

Note that the above paragraphs are an argument against what I find to be simplistic Catholic arguments and do not indicate that I agree with Sola Scriptura. I don’t. But these arguments don’t get to the real issues…

I follow you.

But oral, apostolic tradition isn’t a product of the Church either. It’s the Word of God, to which, again, the Church obediently listens…

Right

I want to repeat, again, that we’re talking about doctrinal authority. I would entirely agree that it wouldn’t be appropriate to say that Scripture is greater or better or more divine than the Church. The fellowship of the Church, the worship of the Church, the holy witness of the Church (in the person of the saints)–we’re not talking about those things. We’re talking about the teaching authority of the Church. This teaching authority, by its own admission (in Dei Verbum) is subject to Scripture and indeed to the Word of God in all its forms, not the other way round…

I follow you now. Right, Your right. I also just re-read Dei Verbum. I believe you made a good point.

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus gave us the gospel, based on love for God and one another. The idea that this man of Galilee, who had no place to lay his head, established an all-male hierarchy such as developed over the centuries, with its medieval trappings and trimmings, with its ornate vestments, with all the precise pomp and ceremony I have seen at church and on EWTN - well, you get the idea.

Relativism again at it best! As oppose to what? A man wearing a fancy suit and being dropped off in a Rolls Royce? That is not pomp? Jesus did not preach democracy nor Affirmative Action. If Jesus’ expressed the same ideals as you,then why didn’t He choose 12 women? Why not 6 men and 6 women?

I’ve always foiund it interesting that just after Peter’s confession - a few verses later - Jesus says to Peter, “Keep thee behind me Satan!” (Matt. 16:23, Mark 8:33)

What exactly do think Jesus’ meant? Yeah and immediately after Jesus says:

You are thinking not as God,but as human beings do.

I believe that the Church, like the rest of the social order, needs to progress as the world changes.

Progress? It what ways? More of the same:

• If it is good for the secular world,why can’t Chirst Church do it too.*

Precisely why so many Christians communties are riddled with issues such as ordaining openly gay folks and same-sex unions.

Too often, as in the case of Galileo, it greets all suggestions of significant change with quotations from ancient Church Fathers who mostly thought the world was flat, who believed that heaven was above the clouds and that hell was inside the earth, who traced disease to demons or God’s punishment, who considered women an inferior and temptress gender, who treasured virginity and celibacy above motherhood and marriage, etc. I have read many Church Fathers - brilliant for their time, but much of what they said was based on the ignorance of their time, too.

No offense,but much you say is also is based on ignorance and relativism.

When Catholicism ordains women (at least Deacons), allows priests to marry, demonstrates more sincere appreciation of other religions (including non-Christians), stops claiming to be the one true Church, permits more democracy within its ranks, allows more freedom of thought and expression, places less emphasis on precise liturgy - etc. - when these and other advances are made, I will rejoice and be glad.

Riggghhhttt! So the church should just bend for invididual agendas so it can make them all happy at the cost of morality,virtues,dogma,doctrines. The same ole relativist attitude: God needs to conform to us,not us to Him.

What most people need are a few good courses on the scriptures at such open-minded, top-notch seminaries as Harvard, Yale, Boston U, Duke, Union, etc. They would provide scholarship that can give a whole new outlook and understanding. 'Nuff sed.

Another words: My personal agenda should be implemented because I am right and the church is wrong. Hey…something similar has been going on for 500 years-PROTESTANISM. Cherry-pick Christianity and make your own version of it so “I” can be happy! No thanks! NUFF SED!

Meanwhile, God bless everybody. I already rejoice in the freedom we have as Americans to think and let think.

Which obviously cannot mix ORTHODOXY. You admire HETERODOXY.

And I certainly salute the thousands of faithful priests and nuns who devote (and have devoted) their lives to helping others. They represent the best in Christianity, and may God especially bless and guide them!

Yes because they have been called by God to do His will…not their own…big difference. A priest is called to it,it is not a RIGHT.

 

[Contarini]

And whats your thoughts? What you stated below here or do you have another thought on this?

I would be inclined to accept the “material sufficiency” of Scripture (which is why I wouldn’t rely on arguments such as the passage in John 21 that talks about all the things Jesus did that aren’t written down, since we really have no reason to think that they have been passed on to us in any form).

For that matter, I tend to think that the Word of God in Scripture is something like (not to push the comparison to far) the Body of Christ in the Eucharist in the sense that the whole is present in every part indivisibly. I’m very influenced by the mystical approach to Scripture found in the Fathers, and I love the way the Fathers read the meaning of one passage of Scripture into another (which drives modern scholars crazy, though of course many conservative Protestants use this method in the absence of a full acceptance of the Tradition that is its natural context). I would describe the patristic view (with which I agree) in this way: every part of Scripture is a window into the whole truth of Scripture (and indeed of the Tradition).

So we can legitimately find the Trinity in Genesis 1, the Eucharist in Malachi, and so on. We shouldn’t use these kinds of interpretations as if they proved the doctrines in question. But to the eye of faith, revealed truth is one indivisible whole.

I don’t know if that really answers your question, but it may explain the way I’ve been speaking on this thread!

Edwin

 

[stewstew03]

So we can legitimately find the Trinity in Genesis 1, the Eucharist in Malachi, and so on. We shouldn’t use these kinds of interpretations as if they proved the doctrines in question. But to the eye of faith, revealed truth is one indivisible whole.

Edwin - have you read “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn? In that book he explores the relationship between the Book of Revelation and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In light of the posts you’ve written on this thread I think you might find it a good read.

 

[lulu88]

**Hello EDWIN,

I dont feel the problem is how many denominations or different sects there are, the real question is, how do most protestants interpret scripture and apply the gospel to their
doctrine or the way they live.

In my view, most Protestants do believe they can fall from grace, they profess through faith that one does keep the commandments and partakes in the Lords Supper. I know this as a former Lutheran. I was taught to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, quote."

I think you should come over to the RCC and see the full light.

Its really the only way to go. I would never be anything else.

Also, read the Saints, they will help guide you with any questions or concerns regarding God, Satan, Heaven, Purgatory,Hell, etc. etc…

Lulu**

 

[CopticChristian]

I would be inclined to accept the “material sufficiency” of Scripture (which is why I wouldn’t rely on arguments such as the passage in John 21 that talks about all the things Jesus did that aren’t written down, since we really have no reason to think that they have been passed on to us in any form).

For that matter, I tend to think that the Word of God in Scripture is something like (not to push the comparison to far) the Body of Christ in the Eucharist in the sense that the whole is present in every part indivisibly. I’m very influenced by the mystical approach to Scripture found in the Fathers, and I love the way the Fathers read the meaning of one passage of Scripture into another (which drives modern scholars crazy, though of course many conservative Protestants use this method in the absence of a full acceptance of the Tradition that is its natural context). I would describe the patristic view (with which I agree) in this way: every part of Scripture is a window into the whole truth of Scripture (and indeed of the Tradition).

So we can legitimately find the Trinity in Genesis 1, the Eucharist in Malachi, and so on. We shouldn’t use these kinds of interpretations as if they proved the doctrines in question. But to the eye of faith, revealed truth is one indivisible whole.

I don’t know if that really answers your question, but it may explain the way I’ve been speaking on this thread!

Edwin

Edwin,

You have neglected my question as to your stating…

The Church did not precede the NT…and my response that the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages…did you forget?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

You have neglected my question as to your stating…

The Church did not precede the NT…and my response that the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages…did you forget?

No, I responded to it in post #416, but this thread has moved so fast that the post got buried quickly.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a very interesting point.

Are you speaking of Ephesians 3:8-10? That passage does not seem to me to be saying clearly that the Church is the mystery, but that the mystery is known through the Church. However, the syntax isn’t very clear.

A similar passage is Col. 1:25-26. There it looks as if the “Word of God” is the mystery.

So on the most basic level, we have one passage that seems to say the Word is the mystery hidden for all ages (and “Word” there seems to mean what it means in Dei Verbum, not what it means in John 1 where it refers to Jesus Himself, though of course the two are closely connected, as are Jesus and the Church!), and another that may say that the Church is the mystery, but less clearly.

However, that doesn’t entirely answer your point. Obviously the Church does pre-exist in God’s electing purpose and eternal knowledge, and insofar as the Church mystically is the Body of Christ and Christ pre-exists. I’m not denying any of that.

But we’re talking about the teaching authority of the Church, and that only makes sense insofar as we’re talking about a historical community of people.

That being said, I can’t see that temporal precedence matters much at all. The point is brought up by those arguing for the “Church over the Bible” position, and in that argument “Church” clearly refers to an actual community of people.

Edwin

Edwin,

Here is the greek…through the Church…

interlinearbible.org/ephesians/3-10.htm

The Church is people, The Body of Christ is People, the head has always been Christ but God in the OT revealed Himself through People…in many and various ways God has spoken to us “through His Prophets and in these last days He has spoken to us through His Son”…

Yes, the autority is an issue…if in days past the speaking by God, the authority…was through people…then the manifold wisdom of God…the authority is delivered through people through the Church…the Pillar and foundation of truth…etc…

Therefore Scripture did not precede the Church hidden for all ages, it took people to inscribe it and we all agree people were created…and they could not have written it until after creation and that comes within and after the mystery hidden for all ages…
OK:thumbsup:

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Here is the greek…through the Church…

We aren’t disputing over whether the mystery is made known through the Church, but whether the mystery is the Church. Those are quite different things. I take Paul to be saying that the mystery has been hidden from all ages, but now is made known through the Church, which implies quite the opposite of what you’re saying. The mystery is only made known now because the Church only exists now.

I’m OK with saying that the Church is the mystery in some sense, but this passage doesn’t actually say that. Hence it’s a poor basis on which to argue for the pre-existence of the Church.

The Church is people, The Body of Christ is People,

Precisely.

And the people–the members as opposed to the Head–did not pre-exist Scripture or for that matter the Incarnation of the Logos.

Edwin