If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[Vonsalza]

That is about your third slam against the Baptists on this thread…

As someone who was a “Baptist” from birth until my mid-to-late twenties, I am appreciative of the introduction to Christianity that they provided me. However, that does not mean that I’m somehow disallowed from critique.

I can tell you from intimate experience that, on the whole, they are unbelievably devisive. My wife’s ex-pastor (when she was CoC) would lightly remark that “They’d just about split over whether the Wednesday night fried chicken was cooked right”. He wasn’t too terribly far from the truth.

My “home-church” (along with several others in the county) was a split from the old, First Baptist that was downtown. Two separate splits from ours had occurred while I was attending during childhood to early adulthood.

I am troubled when I think of what opportunities are missed for the Gospel as a result of Baptists in my home-county having to pay off yet another church building…

When you have an authoritative Church with a truly Apostolic priesthood, the division largely evaporates. If you want to start a new parish in town for virtually any reason other than growth, the Church won’t let you. Warring parties are forced to reconcile because the Church isn’t theirs. It’s Christ’s. In the same way, God’s truth is revealed to his Church. Not necessarily to you and me.

 

[Tomyris]

As someone who was a “Baptist” from birth until my mid-to-late twenties, I am appreciative of the introduction to Christianity that they provided me. However, that does not mean that I’m somehow disallowed from critique.

I can tell you from intimate experience that, on the whole, they are unbelievably devisive. My wife’s ex-pastor (when she was CoC) would lightly remark that “They’d just about split over whether the Wednesday night fried chicken was cooked right”. He wasn’t too terribly far from the truth.

My “home-church” (along with several others in the county) was a split from the old, First Baptist that was downtown. Two separate splits from ours had occurred while I was attending during childhood to early adulthood.

I am troubled when I think of what opportunities are missed for the Gospel as a result of Baptists in my home-county having to pay off yet another church building…

When you have an authoritative Church with a truly Apostolic priesthood, the division largely evaporates. If you want to start a new parish in town for virtually any reason other than growth, the Church won’t let you. Warring parties are forced to reconcile because the Church isn’t theirs. It’s Christ’s. In the same way, God’s truth is revealed to his Church. Not necessarily to you and me.

I’ve had some experiences with Baptists.

As you know, it is the Southern Baptist CONVENTION. Not 'denomination. It is a convention of independent churches, so First Baptist Church at 101 Main Street may have to deal with First Baptist Church at 102 Main, both attempting to reach the same people with identical, parallel programs. At one point I was in an area where independent charismatic churches were springing up faster than you could count them, because they were also closing down faster than you could count them. Of that generation I think two or three are surviving out of over twenty, and only one of the two is thriving. I think people would go see the new church and they would open with 200 people and think they were in business for good, but then another church would open, and most of the people would go over there. I’ve talked to people who have been through that.

The problem you describe is not one faced outside of independent churches. Perhaps you simply have had no experience with denominations, any of which would discourage planting a church next door to an existing church. We (my denomination) do some church planting, and one of the considerations is what churches are already in an area and whether we would reach anyone, or if they are already reached. We might theoretically plant two churches in an area, one to the Laotians and another to Hispanics, with widely varying cultures. I think the Catholics do that sometimes, with say a Polish and a Hispanic church in overlapping parishes.

So I don’t think you are anti-Protestant in general. I think you have an ax to grind against Baptists that does not apply necessarily to all Protestants.

If there was a town that was all Methodist (to pick a denomination), would the Catholic church hesitate to plant a church there? I don’t know. If we were looking at a town where 100% of the people were attending First Methodist, we would plant elsewhere. But if there were 2000 people in a town of 20,000 who were not attending church at all, I think we might consider it. As a courtesy the planting pastor would talk to the other pastors in town first. If there was too much hostility we might take a pass also, as we do work across denominational boundaries.

 

[Tomyris]

The Anglican Bishop who initiated this virtual meeting has since passed. So I’m assuming the communication ceased. However, still nice to see the Pope and Evangelicals acting civilized and not anathematizing one another.

I saw it on Youtube. The “related videos” which I did not watch had some things in the list that were not exactly complementary, alternately between blasting either Kenneth Copeland or the Pope.

I am not sure Kenneth Copeland is actually an Evangelical. He is more Word-Faith charismatic, which includes a lot of things Evangelicals do not go along with. I would not describe him as an Evangelical because of that difference. There is probably an overlap between the two groups but I don’t know where he would land regarding the divide.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I saw it on Youtube. The “related videos” which I did not watch had some things in the list that were not exactly complementary, alternately between blasting either Kenneth Copeland or the Pope.

I am not sure Kenneth Copeland is actually an Evangelical. He is more Word-Faith charismatic, which includes a lot of things Evangelicals do not go along with. I would not describe him as an Evangelical because of that difference. There is probably an overlap between the two groups but I don’t know where he would land regarding the divide.

Yeah, the name is claim it gospel…not sure it is mainstream but it sure is gaining in popularity with Joel Osteen and others out there.

 

[Tomyris]

Yeah, the name is claim it gospel…not sure it is mainstream but it sure is gaining in popularity with Joel Osteen and others out there.

I recall reading an article years ago about how Kenneth Copeland had moved away from orthodoxy, but I don’t recall the specifics. I have an old friend or two on FB who now are always SPEAKING things and DECLARING and NAMING - I have not asked exactly what they mean because I am afraid of the answer. I hear references now and again to Joel but I have not pursued finding out exactly why he is being criticized.

On the other hand, I have heard that this Pope of yours is Catholic. But on some websites you can discover he is not. There are umpteen zillion websites all insisting they represent true Catholicism. There’s Old Catholicism which split after Vatican I, taking the faith with them, they say, and various sedevacantist sites. The sedevacantists really should identify which was the last real pope, to help other people out and keep it all straight. Like software versions. You know, Sede 1958. And maybe by the month: Sede 1958.6. And people who are thinking about going could be Sede 2017.03 Release Candidate, where they are still testing the waters. Those contemplating going Sede in the future might just state Sede Future until they can nail down the date. Or Sede XX. Which would probably be thought of as Sede 20, so that won’t work. Just my suggestion to help clarify things.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I recall reading an article years ago about how Kenneth Copeland had moved away from orthodoxy, but I don’t recall the specifics. I have an old friend or two on FB who now are always SPEAKING things and DECLARING and NAMING - I have not asked exactly what they mean because I am afraid of the answer. I hear references now and again to Joel but I have not pursued finding out exactly why he is being criticized.

On the other hand, I have heard that this Pope of yours is Catholic. But on some websites you can discover he is not. There are umpteen zillion websites all insisting they represent true Catholicism. There’s Old Catholicism which split after Vatican I, taking the faith with them, they say, and various sedevacantist sites. The sedevacantists really should identify which was the last real pope, to help other people out and keep it all straight. Like software versions. You know, Sede 1958. And maybe by the month: Sede 1958.6. And people who are thinking about going could be Sede 2017.03 Release Candidate, where they are still testing the waters. Those contemplating going Sede in the future might just state Sede Future until they can nail down the date. Or Sede XX. Which would probably be thought of as Sede 20, so that won’t work. Just my suggestion to help clarify things.

The Osteen comment wasn’t a slight at Protestantism, btw. I just see this movement that God supposedly wants you rich, healthy and is your personal, cosmic butler. And it is ridiculous not only to me, but to some protestants I have talked to as well. I wonder how this prosperity gospel sounds to starving children in Africa who have to walk 5 miles, barefoot, to get water to drink and bathe in…

And interesting that you reference facebook, because I see a lot of this name it, claim it stuff on there, mainly from celebrities or TV personalities.

Copeland, if I remember correctly, made some controversial comments about Christians being Gods…of course basing that off of the discourse in the garden. That fits into his theological, WOF bubble so not surprising he would say such a thing, if he indeed did say it. But is he a heretic? Who really knows?

 

[Tomyris]

The Osteen comment wasn’t a slight at Protestantism,

I didn’t take it that way.

btw. I just see this movement that God supposedly wants you rich, healthy and is your personal, cosmic butler. And it is ridiculous not only to me, but to some protestants I have talked to as well. I wonder how this prosperity gospel sounds to starving children in Africa who have to walk 5 miles, barefoot, to get water to drink and bathe in…

I just saw satire on that on Babylonbee.com a day ago or so. The Bee is a satire site oriented to Evangelicals. Calvinists and WOF are often featured.

And interesting that you reference facebook, because I see a lot of this name it, claim it stuff on there, mainly from celebrities or TV personalities.

Copeland, if I remember correctly, made some controversial comments about Christians being Gods…of course basing that off of the discourse in the garden. That fits into his theological, WOF bubble so not surprising he would say such a thing, if he indeed did say it. But is he a heretic? Who really knows?

I put my thinking cap on and said he can’t be a formal heretic in the Catholic sense, because first you have to be Catholic before you can be declared a heretic. Maybe that is the Pope’s devious plot: have him become Catholic and then declare him a heretic.

We can’t call him a heretic, formally, because he is not one of our ministers and that is not gonna happen. I think they don’t call someone a heretic if so charged; the accused if guilty gets examined and pronounced ‘unfit on doctrine grounds’ or something like that.

I think KC is his own organization, so he would have to declare himself a heretic, I expect, and excommunicate himself. Then if he repents, will he receive himself back into his own fellowship? I don’t think he has thought that out. Hmmm.

So to answer your question, now that I am The Answer Person, is that no, he is not a heretic.

Next question, please, here on The Answer Person. Hello, you are on the air…

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14564784]I don’t think “institutional membership” is the point either. The point is submission to Christ’s Church - of which we read only one was established. One might be able to reasonably conclude that if they can’t track the visible existence of their “brand” all the way back to Christ without interruption, it’s probably not a valid candidate for The Church.

Lutherans can. Anglicans can. Lots of traditions can, but membership in His Church is not defined thus. It is defined, first, by Baptism. My baptism makes me as much a part of the Church as that of a cradle Catholic.

I’m not sure anything can ever “disprove” our own beliefs, even if they might be heretical (especially when one rejects the authoritative priesthood). It’s worth pointing out that The first council was in Jerusalem, the second in Antioch and Paul operated out of Rome. What did these three locales have in common?

It was where Peter was at the time.

Amen, but Peter wasn’t in charge at Jerusalem, James was. That doesn’t give James any form of universal jurisdiction either.
If you’re trying to argue the significance of St. Peter’s leadership, you don’t need to convince me, but as you’ve said, Orthodoxy recognizes leadership, and the “development” of the doctrine was over time, and not agreed to by all of the bishops.

What allows the Catholic to do it is the fact that all these competing groups hold certain doctrines in common, which the ancient Church holds as false. Personal revelation, sola scriptura, sola fide and others. These are the bedrocks of Protestantism.

Remarkably inaccurate. This is why the notion of “protestantism” is a fallacy. Personal interpretation is not the practice in some communions, soteriology differs dramatically, particularly between Lutheran and Reformed teachings, sola scriptura is not even recognized in some and has different meanings to different communions. There are communions that are sacramental, and others that are not (for me the biggest divide). The fact is Catholics cannot argue this with any hope of accuracy. One will either entirely misrepresent the teaching of one communion, or misrepresent many.

I’ve participated on this forum far too long to believe for a moment that these “bedrocks of Protestantism” are universal throughout the western non-Catholic Christianity.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Isn;t there autoexcommunication for certain sins today and general absolution sometimes given, without the particular sins being heard?

Nowhere in the NT is there a command to confess sins to elders. The book of James comes closest with ‘confess your sins to each other’, but also note that the whole thing of the elders praying and someone getting healed is before the confession, not after. Nor is there an example of anyone confessing sins to an elder, to my recollection, that would model the modern Catholic sacrament of Confession.

Hi T,’ and actually I prefer this rendition, “Confess your faults one to another (not sins)”

 

[Tomyris]

Hi T,’ and actually I prefer this rendition, “Confess your faults one to another (not sins)”

Most people seem to read it as “Point out the other person’s faults.”

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve had some experiences with Baptists.
As you know, it is the Southern Baptist CONVENTION. Not 'denomination…

The SBC only represents about 16 million of the 100 million Baptists worldwide. It is a denomination. From Oxford: “Denomination: A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.” First Baptist in the town I currently live in, for example, is not SBC.

The problem you describe is not one faced outside of independent churches.

Unfortunately, these types of Churches represent the majority of the face of contemporary Protestantism. The Pentecostal and Charismatic groups represent over 350 million of the 900 million protestants worldwide. Add the Baptists and you already have half of all Protestants currently living with just those groups.

While you’re right that more “mainline” denominations such as the Lutherans (90 m.), Anglicans (80 m. - includes Episcopals), Methodists (80 m.) and Presbyterians (50 m.) have more centralized control over Church planting, they’re still falling prey to to the same problem of division as the evangelicals - just to a less rabid degree.

As someone who considered the Presbyterian Church when I turned more “reformed” in my late teens, we’re both aware of the problems of liberalization and resultant division that the denomination has encountered. Particularly in post-1970s America.

Numbers pulled from Wikipedia, so there may be some inaccuracies.

 

[benhur]

Most people seem to read it as “Point out the other person’s faults.”

The gift of rebuke.

 

[benhur]

Greetings Ben.

How did the apostles know what sins to forgive or retain unless they were first hearing them?

Thanks

Hi La,

All sins are forgiven by faith in Christ and His blood. The apostles know sins are forgiven when they see repentance from unbelief and outward sign of new life such as baptism…folks become a Christian. They know someone’s sin is not forgiven when they reject the gospel invitation, and do not become a Christian.

So you’re question is misplaced. It is more about knowing when they are forgiven , and proclaim them so, and when they are not , and proclaim them so.

Blessings

 

[Vonsalza]

[Church Membership] is defined, first, by Baptism. My baptism makes me as much a part of the Church as that of a cradle Catholic.

Amen. The question is how one persists as part of Christ’s Church.

As you’ve referenced the catechism, CCC 846: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Amen, but Peter wasn’t in charge at Jerusalem, James was.

Yes he was! But it wasn’t held in Jerusalem on account of James, it was held on account of Peter. That fact that James had been given Jerusalem as his seat is tangential.
I’m sure we agree that the local bishop doesn’t get any extra “say” because the meeting’s taking place on his home turf.

Orthodoxy recognizes leadership, and the “development” of the doctrine was over time, and not agreed to by all of the bishops.

Little doubt, it has developed. But it didn’t develop from a starting position of equality, either.

Personal interpretation is not the practice in some communions, soteriology differs dramatically, particularly between Lutheran and Reformed teachings, sola scriptura is not even recognized in some and has different meanings to different communions.

I’m happy to concede that due to the exponential growth of the number of different and conflicting forms of Protestantism out there, there is indeed an extremely wide array of views that even push the limits of what you can believe and still be “Christian”. That’s been my “theme” so far.

However, as a former student at a respected Baptist seminary that was very “pro-reformed theology”, if you’d like to suggest that 1.personal interpretation/revelation, 2. sola fide 3. sola scriptura aren’t fundamental to the absolutely overwhelming majority of both the number of protestant people and the number protestant denominations/independent churches on the planet, I’d respectfully request that you start naming some denominations and the number of adherents in each that eschew these principles. While I’m sure a few exist, they are indubitably a minority in wider Protestantism. Baptists, Pentecostals and Charismatics alone hold half the population of Protestantism and they, by and large, hold to these with tremendous religious zeal.

This denial and obfuscation on the part of learned protestants is common because, frankly, it’s really the only defense they have. When you’re not in a church with a founding date in the 1st century and you’re competing with literally thousands of other co-claimants with similarly “valid” claims, your best chance of intellectual and philosophical survival is differentiation from “the horde” by any means - including denial that this obvious “horde” even exists.

One concession - there is great debate over whether Anglicanism can be labeled “protestant”. While the Catholic Church has nullified the validity of their holy orders, Anglicans are, by and large, not products of the reformation in continental Europe.

They weren’t born “protesting” the Catholic Church. They were born by submitting to the headship of Henry VIII.

---

Truly amazing what happened to the Church when the original, authoritative hierarchy was rejected. Truly.

 

[JonNC]

Amen. The question is how one persists as part of Christ’s Church.

As you’ve referenced the catechism, CCC 846: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Yes he was! But it wasn’t held in Jerusalem on account of James, it was held on account of Peter. That fact that James had been given Jerusalem as his seat is tangential.
I’m sure we agree that the local bishop doesn’t get any extra “say” because the meeting’s taking place on his home turf.

Little doubt, it has developed. But it didn’t develop from a starting position of equality, either.

I’m happy to concede that due to the exponential growth of the number of different and conflicting forms of Protestantism out there, there is indeed an extremely wide array of views that even push the limits of what you can believe and still be “Christian”. That’s been my “theme” so far.

However, as a former student at a respected Baptist seminary that was very “pro-reformed theology”, if you’d like to suggest that 1.personal interpretation/revelation, 2. sola fide 3. sola scriptura aren’t fundamental to the absolutely overwhelming majority of both the number of protestant people and the number protestant denominations/independent churches on the planet, I’d respectfully request that you start naming some denominations and the number of adherents in each that eschew these principles. While I’m sure a few exist, they are indubitably a minority in wider Protestantism. Baptists, Pentecostals and Charismatics alone hold half the population of Protestantism and they, by and large, hold to these with tremendous religious zeal.

This denial and obfuscation on the part of learned protestants is common because, frankly, it’s really the only defense they have. When you’re not in a church with a founding date in the 1st century and you’re competing with literally thousands of other co-claimants with similarly “valid” claims, your best chance of intellectual and philosophical survival is differentiation from “the horde” by any means - including denial that this obvious “horde” even exists.

One concession - there is great debate over whether Anglicanism can be labeled “protestant”. While the Catholic Church has nullified the validity of their holy orders, Anglicans are, by and large, not products of the reformation in continental Europe.

They weren’t born “protesting” the Catholic Church. They were born by submitting to the headship of Henry VIII.

---

Truly amazing what happened to the Church when the original, authoritative hierarchy was rejected. Truly.

A quick response to the last : the protest was not against the Catholic Church in Europe, as you probably know. It was against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer.

 

[Vonsalza]

A quick response to the last : the protest was not against the Catholic Church in Europe, as you probably know. It was against civil authorities at the Second Diet of Speyer.

Interesting. That Diet was held over a decade after Luther allegedly posted his theses.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

All sins are forgiven by faith in Christ and His blood. The apostles know sins are forgiven when they see repentance from unbelief and outward sign of new life such as baptism…folks become a Christian. They know someone’s sin is not forgiven when they reject the gospel invitation, and do not become a Christian.

So you’re question is misplaced. It is more about knowing when they are forgiven , and proclaim them so, and when they are not , and proclaim them so.

Blessings

Hi Ben.

Mark 16:16 is the Gospel invitation you speak of. So with your interpretation of this passage he is essentially repeating himself while wording it completely differently, and therefore misleading the reader into thinking the apostles and the Church have actual authority.

John, same author, goes on to say in a epistle there is a difference between sins and that even if you pray for the individual it will make no difference, if it’s mortal. And why is that? Because it would need to be confessed and absolved:

1 John 5:16-17New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

Unfortunately this has been mistranslated in many protestant bibles. They mangle it to make it appear to be a singular sin such as the Blasphemy of the Spirit(often speculated along with apostasy), etc. Very misleading.

Kudos to the New King James, MSG, JUB, GNT and others for actually getting it right!!!

God bless

 

[JonNC]

Interesting. That Diet was held over a decade after Luther allegedly posted his theses.

Yes. 1529. That’s when the formal protest was issued, hence the name, Protestant. That’s why Anglicans don’t fit the grouping. They weren’t in Central Europe.

 

[JonNC]

=Vonsalza;14565731]Amen. The question is how one persists as part of Christ’s Church.

Christ is pretty clear on how we should persist.

As you’ve referenced the catechism, CCC 846: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Who on Earth would not join the Catholic Church if they knew its doctrines and teachings were correct? But that is Catholic teaching.

Yes he was! But it wasn’t held in Jerusalem on account of James, it was held on account of Peter. That fact that James had been given Jerusalem as his seat is tangential.
I’m sure we agree that the local bishop doesn’t get any extra “say” because the meeting’s taking place on his home turf.

It was held there because they were all there, not just Peter. One could logically conclude that the others need not have been there at all, knowing Peter had supremacy over the Church.

Little doubt, it has developed. But it didn’t develop from a starting position of equality, either.

And it “developed” with the benefit of truly ecumenical councils.

I’m happy to concede that due to the exponential growth of the number of different and conflicting forms of Protestantism out there, there is indeed an extremely wide array of views that even push the limits of what you can believe and still be “Christian”. That’s been my “theme” so far.

too clever by half.
I get the feeling you know enough about the Reformation era to know that one need not look to later groups to see the differences between Luther and Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and later Calvin to know that on soteriology, eschatalogy, ecclesiology, hermeneutics, there never was agreement. There never was a “Protestant Church”.

However, as a former student at a respected Baptist seminary that was very “pro-reformed theology”, if you’d like to suggest that 1.personal interpretation/revelation, 2. sola fide 3. sola scriptura aren’t fundamental to the absolutely overwhelming majority of both the number of protestant people and the number protestant denominations/independent churches on the planet, I’d respectfully request that you start naming some denominations and the number of adherents in each that eschew these principles

What I am suggesting is that even in the Reformation era, these were not universally held to, at least in the understanding of what they meant. As someone from a respected Baptist seminary, are you suggesting that there is any agreement between Lutherans and Calvinists on the TULIP (other than the T)? Are you suggesting that there ever was?
Are you suggesting for a moment that Baptist hermeneutics is the same as Lutheran hermeneutics?

While I’m sure a few exist, they are indubitably a minority in wider Protestantism. Baptists, Pentecostals and Charismatics alone hold half the population of Protestantism and they, by and large, hold to these with tremendous religious zeal.

Please state the headquarters for the Protestant Church?
Baptists have their beliefs. Pentecostals have theirs. Charismatics exist in Catholic and other settings.

The idea that one can debate on the basis that all protestants are the same is simply absurd.

This denial and obfuscation on the part of learned protestants is common because, frankly, it’s really the only defense they have. When you’re not in a church with a founding date in the 1st century and you’re competing with literally thousands of other co-claimants with similarly “valid” claims, your best chance of intellectual and philosophical survival is differentiation from “the horde” by any means - including denial that this obvious “horde” even exists.

Actually, choosing to argue in this way is lazy. Every Christian, via baptism, is a member of the Church founded at Pentecost. To argue that the “hordes” as you remarkably refer to your Christian brothers and sisters, are one “horde” is lazy.

One concession - there is great debate over whether Anglicanism can be labeled “protestant”. While the Catholic Church has nullified the validity of their holy orders, Anglicans are, by and large, not products of the reformation in continental Europe.

They’re not Protestant because they weren’t involved in the protest at Speyer.

Truly amazing what happened to the Church when the original, authoritative hierarchy was rejected. Truly.

Yes, when the innovative claim of supremacy fractured the authority of the Church in the Councils, one could predict further fracturing. It is truly sad. As I said, the greatest thing that could occur is reconciliation and full communion between the EO and Rome.

Jon

 

[Vonsalza]

Christ is pretty clear on how we should persist.

looks at all the different and conflicting “Christian” groups

I’m not sure that’s true. It’s not a problem when you acknowledge an original, apostolic priesthood. But when it becomes a matter of “Well, I think Christ means…” we get exactly the relativist chaos that Luther himself lamented in his later ministry.

Who on Earth would not join the Catholic Church if they knew its doctrines and teachings were correct? But that is Catholic teaching.

The same could be said for Christianity in general.

It was held there because they were all there, not just Peter. One could logically conclude that the others need not have been there at all, knowing Peter had supremacy over the Church.

We’d agree that they weren’t all natively in Antioch, but that was where the next one was held. Again, because of Peter.
There is a middle ground between egalitarianism and totalitarianism, especially as it pertains to the Chair of Peter.

There never was a “Protestant Church”.

As a unified, single “church”, you’re totally 100% correct. It was born in chaos and never coalesced into cosmos - only exponentially more chaos. As Christ only prescribed one Church, that is likely Protestantisms greatest indictment.

What I am suggesting is that even in the Reformation era, these were not universally held to, at least in the understanding of what they meant. As someone from a respected Baptist seminary, are you suggesting that there is any agreement between Lutherans and Calvinists on the TULIP (other than the T)? Are you suggesting that there ever was?

Actually, the only real chaffing point in TULIP for Lutherans is the “L” - Limited Atonement. The rest are accepted with caveat. lcms.org/faqs/denominations

Are you suggesting for a moment that Baptist hermeneutics is the same as Lutheran hermeneutics?

As a result of personal interpretation/revelation, of course not.

Please state the headquarters for the Protestant Church?

The lack is another indictment of Protestantism and it’s lack of genuine teaching authority. The Church and it’s predecessor had theirs in Rome and Jerusalem, where the leadership of the priesthood resided - as God has always provided us with a priesthood.

The idea that one can debate on the basis that all protestants are the same is simply absurd.
Actually, choosing to argue in this way is lazy.

From the perspective of one defending it, I can see the merit of the view. One the other hand, from the perspective of one who thinks Christ established one Church that was 1. given the sole authority to lead/teach and 2. cannot fail, it’s simply efficient.

They’re not Protestant because they weren’t involved in the protest at Speyer.

Respectfully, rumblings of Protestantism were underway since the crisis of the Avignon Papacy. The view that it can trace itself, as a movement, to one Diet that took place as late as a decade after the 95 Theses is one not widely held.

Further to the contrary, the religious etymology of “protestant” is commonly given as “the protest” of the Pope and the authority of the Church. Not any one particular event.

Yes, when the innovative claim of supremacy…

I’m not so sure it’s truly innovative. In the days of the Patriarchs, the male heir of Adam was obviously lauded in a place of honor that the other “household priests” were not. When the priesthood passed to the Levites by God’s command, they also had a high-priest, as we explicitly read.

The maintenance of a “headship” over God’s people doesn’t seem to be an innovation. It seems to be a continuation of what simply always was from the very beginning.