If you could accept the pillars of Protestantism...

[christcnection1]

No, you are incorrect. When you seperate out groups like the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons, you still have a wide variety of basic beliefs.

I think that a lot of Protestants are blind to this and therefore can falsly say that they are unified. You aren’t.

Now, come on… at least they agree on the “essentials.”

Umm… I’m afraid many don’t even agree on what the “essentials” are.

Does the Bible say which things are necessary and which are not? (sarcasm)

Well, let me be honest. Yes there is a lot of unity in Protestantism on some level. There is also a high degree of tolerance, which is both a good and bad thing, depending on the issue.

I just believe it’s impossible for them to have the unity described in John 17 – that they would be perfectly one, as Jesus is with the Father.

That would be something if the Father believe in infant baptism and Jesus believed it was wrong.
It also blows my mind how many believe in “Once Saved Always Saved” and how many do not. That is one “essential” they should all be in line with; wouldn’t you think?

 

[christcnection1]

speaking hypothetically then, if I were free to choose the “pillars” of my religion I would compare and contrast (remember the old HS English assignment?) and choose the belief that sounded most comforting, so let’s go

I can choose between a Jesus who is a good role model, a little eccentric with a goofy group of friends, who is still an all-around nice guy OR a Jesus who is the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God Incarnate, the Word made flesh dwelling among us, who became man, suffered died and was buried, rose again, ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, will judge the living and the dead.

I can choose between Jesus who is present to me most intimately when I read about him in the bible OR a Jesus who is present most intimately within me, Body Blood Soul and Divinity when I receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.

I can believe that the sacred moments of life when I partake in the ritual actions of the Church which He founded through the sacraments that Jesus Christ is sacramentally present through those sacred words and actions, OR I can merely believe that they are touching customs and cute ideas which I am free to tweak according to personal prefrence OR I can believe that they are merely traditions of men and reject His promised presence through them.

I can believe that I have the power to forgive my own sins and absolve myself from all guilt and avoid all just punishment for my sins through a simple act of repeating a prayer in front of a bunch of people who have fellowshipped with me, OR I can believe implicitly in the Divine Mercy and recognize that only God forgives my sins, but that for my own spiritual health I must honestly recall my sins, confess them to the priest who represents Christ Himself, and humbly wait for absolution, and firmly resolve to sin no more, and return to that font of grace every time I sin again.

Hmmmmm. gee what is most comforting in the long run
a God I can only read about but never encounter, a God who promises wealth and prosperity for his followers in this world, or a God who seeks me, has come to me and offers union with Him as the goal and end of my life and eternity with him in the next world. Gee, hard choice. But if hypothetically I am making up my own religion I know which way I am going.

I actually agree with you, but I think you are looking into this too deeply. This is because I exercised my brain, and I came to the conclusion that Catholicism made far more sense. (…not to mention all the prayer and miracles that led me here.)

Now, let’s strip reality and the intellect out of the equation. This is clearly the hypothetical.

If Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were true, I would personally find them comforting ideas. (This is the base were are starting from. That would make Catholicism intrinsically false.)

This is largely the point I’m trying to make. People embrace them because they are feel good on many levels. In a superficial way, I think they seem reasonable, until of course you dig a little. You then come to the same conclusions we have embraced.

 

[deb1]

IThis is largely the point I’m trying to make. People embrace them because they are feel good on many levels. In a superficial way, I think they seem reasonable, until of course you dig a little. You then come to the same conclusions we have embraced.

One of the reasons that I have a hard time convincing Protestants of the falsehood of OSAS(I understand that not all Protestants believe this) is that many of them would loose faith if this is proved untrue. I read it over and over on this forum. The believer in OSAS will say,’ but it will make Jesus’ death mean nothing if OSAS is false.’ Maybe I will be doing a deeper wrong if I convince them of OSAS falseness and they loose all faith in Jesus. Perhaps something is better then nothing.

I also know mothers who have had grown children die who weren’t Christians. OSAS really comforts these parents. "Well, my child got saved at bible camp, so they must be in heaven.’ How do you destroy a parents’ comfort?

 

[Syele]

The five pillars of Protestanism are sola fida, sola christo, sola scriptura, To God the Glory Alone(don’t remember the Latin name) Sola Gratia

That is what must of us are referring to and I am almost certain this is what you believe. I seem to remember you starting a thread about this.

sigh no no no they are the 5 pillars of the Reformation not of protestantism. If they are the pillars of Protestantism, you are going to have to think up a new title for all the Remonstrants (Arminians) and all the middle of the road folks.

 

[Syele]

Somehow my browser quit in the middle of that post and posted some of it… so here is the rest.

The five pillars of Protestanism are sola fida, sola christo, sola scriptura, To God the Glory Alone(don’t remember the Latin name) Sola Gratia

That is what must of us are referring to and I am almost certain this is what you believe. I seem to remember you starting a thread about this.

I do not adhere to those 5 unless you modify the reformers definitions to be very vague. But if you do that the Catholics adhere to them too. I did post up some thread about them, not to defend them but to discuss them.

 

[christcnection1]

One of the reasons that I have a hard time convincing Protestants of the falsehood of OSAS(I understand that not all Protestants believe this) is that many of them would loose faith if this is proved untrue. I read it over and over on this forum. The believer in OSAS will say,’ but it will make Jesus’ death mean nothing if OSAS is false.

Indeed, this ties into their understanding of justification: Sola Fide, Imputed Righteousness vs. our understanding of justification: both faith and works are a requirement (in ordinary circumstances) and Infused Righteousness.

The graces our dear Lord merited for us on the cross are applied to us through the Sacraments (and other graces), so that we will actually be made holy. His death on the cross perpetuates the good work He started in us until completion, assuming we cooperate with His grace. All those who die in God’s friendship (being in Christ) will ultimately be admitted into heaven, as they acheive full and perfect union with Him. Of course every step is His grace, His mercy, and His love. However, we are not robots, and He is not a Divine Rapist; otherwise, our love for Him could not be genuine.

I believe that salvation being a process (Infused Righteousness) is the primary point many of them have a hard time reconcilling, and making sense out of. They are trained to see salvation as a one-time event, which is not totally wrong. Catholics are saved. Furthermore, the fear of losing one’s salvation can be frightening to many people. It undermines their assurance.

The idea of infused righteousness calls God’s people to a radical faith, where He desires everything we are. For if you love Him, you will obey His commandments, and endure to the end. It’s not rocket science, but it does take some explaining.

 

[O.S.Luke]

What strawman post. The O.P.'s mind was already made up, and regardless of what you find, you would only “find” what you expect.

This is not helpful.

 

[KCT]

Bible alone sounds pretty good at first. I can see why people accept it. I mean, it’s the Bible for goodness sakes! —KCT

 

[christcnection1]

Bible alone sounds pretty good at first. I can see why people accept it. I mean, it’s the Bible for goodness sakes! —KCT

See… that’s the type of gut reaction I mean. It is very easy for a person to accept, particularly if they just came to Christ.

Thanks for the honesty. I agree.

 

[deb1]

Somehow my browser quit in the middle of that post and posted some of it… so here is the rest.

I do not adhere to those 5 unless you modify the reformers definitions to be very vague. But if you do that the Catholics adhere to them too. I did post up some thread about them, not to defend them but to discuss them.

But your words even more prove my point that Protestants aren’t united at all. How don’t you see that?

Unless of course your definition of united is just a broad sense of being Christian. In which case you are united with the Catholic church as well.

 

[deb1]

sigh no no no they are the 5 pillars of the Reformation not of protestantism. If they are the pillars of Protestantism, you are going to have to think up a new title for all the Remonstrants (Arminians) and all the middle of the road folks.

Actually this would be an interesting thread. Which Protestant groups don’t adhere to the five pillars of the reformation and why not? How do they differ? Etc. We will derail the thread answering these questions but I’d find reading about them interesting.