I'm a Protestant Christian. Ask me anything!

[Wannano]

ltwin:

Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. Episcopalians run the entire spectrum from symbolic to transubstantiation and everything in between.

Ok.

And my original question remains unanswered…

The issue is not about forcing people to believe one thing. The issue is “what is true? What is God’s intent.”

The diversity of beliefs about the real presence, the observance of different numbers of the sacraments, etc. If one’s intent is to adhere to that which is God’s intent, then how do you explain the diversity of contradictory or opposing positions by each of the different denominations?

I have not yet responded to you largely because I struggle with the same questions. I do not claim to be an apologist or to understand all that entails God’s intent. So I will simplistically put forward what makes sense to me. I believe God created man in His own image because He desired to have a relationship with man and His creation. Man has proven to be unworthy of any consideration of God, yet God loves us so much that He sacrificed His own Son which when we truly believe in Him enables us to have everlasting life. That was not only God’s intent for mankind but also is an accomplished reality. We now, as individuals, have the privilege of a restored relationship with Him if we personally receive this gift. If we are in Christ, we have been made a new creature. Out of gratitude to Him, we worship Him as Lord and Master of our lives and express our worship in a multitude of different ways that reflect our diversity of personality, race, culture and understanding. He said the world will know we are His by the love we have for one another, not by the way we can convince others we have a corner on His Truth.

 

[adf417]

Out of gratitude to Him, we worship Him as Lord and Master of our lives and express our worship in a multitude of different ways that reflect our diversity of personality, race, culture and understanding. He said the world will know we are His by the love we have for one another, not by the way we can convince others we have a corner on His Truth.

This is a very common justification to the question that was asked. However, it does not exclude Mormons, JWs and even Muslims.

Peace!!!

 

[Wannano]

I suppose when you chop up something someone has presented you can make up all kinds of conclusions.

 

[adf417]

I did not chop anything. If you want to see full context just click the dropdown arrow. Its all there.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Searching1:

Episcopalians believe in consubstantiation

Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. Episcopalians run the entire spectrum from symbolic to transubstantiation and everything in between.

Lutheranism does not teach consubstantiation. No knowledgeable Lutheran would, and no Lutheran theologian ever has. Many Lutherans do describe the doctrine of the real presence as Sacramental Union.

 

[JonNC]

Yep. As do Anglicans, more generally.

Though I’ve heard some Lutherans do not assert consubstantiation.

No Lutheran [ should ] assert consubstantiation, anymore than they would assert transubstantiation. It is contrary to the confessions and the historic teaching of Lutheran tradition.

 

[GKMotley]

As I thought.

 

[JonNC]

The diversity of beliefs about the real presence, the observance of different numbers of the sacraments, etc.

There was diversity of beliefs about the real presence before the Reformation era. Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t typically use the metaphysical Transubstantiation.

 

[ProfFF]

I forgot the site but a priest wrote an article on this very subject and even the priest refuted the claim and he even said that Catholics needed to stop quoting 33,000 different Protestant denominations. Because even he argued against that number.

Also I see that Billions of Catholics send prayers up. When I did research I see that the Vatican gives a number of 1.2 million Catholics.

 

[GKMotley]

It’s been done on this site, many times. It will never go away.

1.2 million Catholics where?

 

[ProfFF]

The article is found on National Catholic Registry. This is about the denomination, because I think in that article he also discusses 240 different Catholic faiths.

 

[GKMotley]

I’ve done this subject, in detail here, many times, as have others. In brief, the origin of the 33k (or other similar numbers) comes from a particular group which publishes data on religions worldwide. They use an idiosyncratic definition of “denomination” which, as folks often observe, must be defined to see what is actually being counted. This group uses the following definition:

Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.

This is the origin of the “240” number for the RCC. The numbers change with each publication of their primary publications, WORLD CHRISTIAN TRENDS and WORLD CHRISTIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thus, at recent times, the number for protestant denoms was around 29k, and lower. Further definitions shred this into other figures, but the basic numbers often cited come from here. They are useless for any type of discussion such as this. But they are cited all over the internet in just this way, not being sourced, from chained citation from other folk who likewise don’t know what is going on.

I think it was JonNC who made a statement above about the relevance to such a discussion, as to multiplicity of Christian denoms, but this, as I think he implied, is not the way to do it.

The group that complies this stuff does not have an overall respected image in the religious sociology field, I have read.

I saved a number of the posts I’ve made, over a number of years, but I don’t propose to dig them out. The subject bores me. Years of seeing it blithely surface can do that.

Bottom line: definition of denomination is key to communication on the subject. It’s pointless to cavil at these folks’ definition. They can define denomination as they wish.

 

[nick2]

If we are saved by grace alone, how do Protestants square that with Matthew 25: 34-46?

God’s word does not contradict itself. Therefore, we must be careful to look at the whole of scripture and let scripture interpret scripture. For this one less clear passage, there are dozens (hundreds?) of clear passages regarding grace alone.

Matthew 25:31–46

The Final Judgment

[31] “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. [33] And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. [34] Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ [37] Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? [38] And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? [39] And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ [40] And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

[41] “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ [44] Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ [45] Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ [46] And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (ESV)

In the context of Jesus’ other parables, the sheep in this passage are referring to believers. I can say this because only believers receive God’s eternal blessing and inherit the kingdom. See Ephesians 1:

 

[nick2]

Ephesians 1:3–14

Spiritual Blessings in Christ

[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, [4] even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love [5] he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, [6] to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. [7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, [8] which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight [9] making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ [10] as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

[11] In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, [12] so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. [13] In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, [14] who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (ESV)

The remainder of Matthew 25:36-45 describes how Jesus 1. cares for the needy, 2. identifies with his disciples (brothers), and 3. equates persecution to believers as directed towards himself.

 

[nick2]

To clarify what I mean by grace alone, I’ll jump back to Ephesians and continue where I left off.

Ephesians 2:1–10

By Grace Through Faith

[1] And you were dead in the trespasses and sins [2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—[3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—[6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, [7] so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (ESV)

Grace is simply something that we receive which we didn’t deserve. This passage unashamedly lays out our spiritual condition before knowing Jesus. We were dead; we were children of wrath! All we deserved was the just wrath of God for our sins. BUT GOD…I love those words. God has given me what I did not deserve: salvation. I praise God that “this is not my own doing”. If salvation were dependent on me, I would’ve lost it! If it was up to me to perform daily rituals, remain moral or upright, I would have failed. That is one of the main themes of Israel’s story. They weren’t good enough. I’m not good enough. Even my good works are like filthy rags. It is an awesome joy to know that my salvation rests fully on Jesus’ shoulders. “By grace you have been saved”-- the verse is absolutely clear. No part in my salvation was the least bit deserved. Otherwise, it would cease to be grace by its very definition.

If we are saved by grace alone, and if all it takes is accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, is there any point in confessing sins?

Absolutely. There are many reasons, but one is that God’s word commands us to. If I can Jesus Lord with my mouth, but do not obey his commandments, then I may just be a self-deceived unbeliever.

Thanks for the good question. Sorry it took so long to respond.

• Nick

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I can’t remember if you responded, but how do you know that you’re using the correct set of books? Why is the Bible complete and inerrant?

 

[adf417]

If you have a genuine curiosity regarding my faith, please message me. Otherwise, if you’re wondering what I believe on core doctrines, please check out Gotquestions.org . I agree with 99% of their articles regarding core doctrine. Also, its just a good website for studying God’s word.

You sure could have saved everyone a lot of time had this been in the OP. With a complete resource like this why would you feel the need to start another thread in the future, or anytime.

Peace!!!

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I think Blackforest misspoke. Catholics wholeheartedly affirm that we are saved by grace and not of our own works. I think sometimes in the Catholic-Protestant dialogue, it can seem like Catholics are defending something we aren’t, or it can lead us to misspeak. Again, Catholics affirm that it is grace that saves us. But the one difference that Catholics and Protestants have is whether the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, like a legal declaration, or whether it is infused into us.
The big differences in this topic are how we view grace, Catholics view it as sacramental, almost as supernatural power, while Protestants tend to view it as merely legal declaration and opinion. And the second big difference is imputed or infused righteousness. We Catholics would view it as Christ’s righteousness infusing us leading us to be righteous, while Protestants view it as imputed, or a legal declaration that we are righteous even though we are not. Does that make sense?
Answering these two by study of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition handed down since the Apostles leads one to the correct view which I would have to say leads one home to Rome. As St. John Henry Newman brilliantly said: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

God Bless

A great site to read up on Catholicism and her teaching is of course Catholic Answers But i recommend reading the brilliant Saint, St. Robert Bellarmine and his works during the Counter-Reformation. Absolutely amazing!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I realize this thread is in Non-Catholic Religions, and for that reason I’m not flagging this post, but I just wanted to note that Gotquestions frequently posts anti-Catholic content (We’ve had issues with it before on the forum), so for anyone who is Catholic or looking to be Catholic, please be aware that it is NOT a “good website for studying God’s word”.