Is Protestantism an innovation? Why or Why not?

[Contarini]

Wow, short and sweet… One thing we should thank our Protestant brothers & sisters for… pews…

Actually, I’m inclined to think that was one of the genuinely harmful innovations!

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Contarini:

Substantiate what claim? That Euan Cameron is a better historian? Well, by any objective standard he’s certainly more eminent as a historian than Belloc was. Belloc got a history degree from Oxford but didn’t pursue an academic career. His work was not written to be read and reviewed by fellow historians but to persuade the general public. Which is not a bad thing at all, just different. And if you want a fair, balanced approach, then you should read someone who is a professional first–without neglecting the propagandists either, especially those as talented as Belloc. I’m just tired of Belloc being cited as if he was the great authority on the Reformation, which he isn’t. Read people who specialize in studying the Reformation, if you really want to understand it.

But really the only way to substantiate the claim is for you to read Cameron’s The European Reformation and judge for yourself. I’m giving an opinion based on having read both. It’s not something for which there are objective standards except in terms of acceptance and accolades by the guild of historians. As I’ve said, Belloc doesn’t come off very well on that score, but that shouldn’t be the decisive factor. The important thing is that he is simply unfair and distorted in his treatment of the Reformation. He consistently downplays the role of theology in the Reformation and misunderstands that theology. He simply isn’t a very good source if you want to understand the Reformation rather than simply pat yourselves on the back for not being like those evil Protestants.

As a comic poet, now, he’s unsurpassed . . . .

In Christ,

Edwin

I’ve been a dedicated and enthusiastic fan and collector of Belloc for 40 years. He’s one of the historical figures I would greatly love to meet, at supper at King’s Land, over a bottle of his own wine. He’s great fun to read, and you can learn from him. But overall, Contarini is right.

GKC (Possibly the only one posting here who has a recording of Belloc singing.)

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It was just a question, thank you for the detail and informed response.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif

Contarini:

Substantiate what claim? That Euan Cameron is a better historian? Well, by any objective standard he’s certainly more eminent as a historian than Belloc was. Belloc got a history degree from Oxford but didn’t pursue an academic career. His work was not written to be read and reviewed by fellow historians but to persuade the general public. Which is not a bad thing at all, just different. And if you want a fair, balanced approach, then you should read someone who is a professional first–without neglecting the propagandists either, especially those as talented as Belloc. I’m just tired of Belloc being cited as if he was the great authority on the Reformation, which he isn’t. Read people who specialize in studying the Reformation, if you really want to understand it.

But really the only way to substantiate the claim is for you to read Cameron’s The European Reformation and judge for yourself. I’m giving an opinion based on having read both. It’s not something for which there are objective standards except in terms of acceptance and accolades by the guild of historians. As I’ve said, Belloc doesn’t come off very well on that score, but that shouldn’t be the decisive factor. The important thing is that he is simply unfair and distorted in his treatment of the Reformation. He consistently downplays the role of theology in the Reformation and misunderstands that theology. He simply isn’t a very good source if you want to understand the Reformation rather than simply pat yourselves on the back for not being like those evil Protestants.

As a comic poet, now, he’s unsurpassed . . . .

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Ozzie:

It makes no sense to call it an “innovation.” The perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation. Her so-called Immaculate conception is an innovation. Her assumption into Heaven is an innovation. The teaching that she’s Queen of Heaven is an innovation. The “Magisterium” is an innovation. The doctrine that it’s infallible is an innovation. Prayer to deceased “saints” is an innovation. “Purgatory” is an innovation. Transubstantiation is an innovation. The sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation is an innovation. The Pope as “vicar of Christ on earth” is an innovation. That the church of Rome is the Church that Christ “founded” is an innovation. That the Roman Bishops are the seccessors of the Apostles is an innovation. That the Roman church (that ANY church, for that matter) is the new Israel is an innovation. Sacrificial nature of the “Mass” is an innovation.

Why? Because none of the above are are found in God’s immutable, written Word. Conclusion: Man’s innovations.**

**## This is where things get very interesting, because the doctrine of the resurrection - any resurrection - was very late. The Sadducees were in that way far more “traditional” than the Pharisees, for they, unlike the Pharisees, rejected it. It was not Scriptural - because it appears only in late books such as Daniel, which the Sadducees did not accept. **

**The precise details of the fate of the dead took centuries to work out - they were still being debated in the 1330s. **

---

**The problem with the Bible is that it is, up to a point, fixed: **this makes it difficult to apply to developments long after its completion. How to judge usury and the taking of interest is a famous example. One says “up to a point” because the text is not entirely fixed - so an adequate account of inspiration may need to provide for textual criticism, the history of the tradition of the text in its various versions, and so on: because it seems to be impossible to isolate a particular text as the unique bearer of inspiration. The Bible is sufficiently stable for general religious purposes - the problems begin when one goes on to say that every last letter of last word is final and perfect and unchangeable and uniquely inspired. ##

 

[dennisknapp]

Gottle of Geer:

## This is where things get very interesting, because the doctrine of the resurrection - any resurrection - was very late. The Sadducees were in that way far more “traditional” than the Pharisees, for they, unlike the Pharisees, rejected it. It was not Scriptural - because it appears only in late books such as Daniel, which the Sadducees did not accept.

The precise details of the fate of the dead took centuries to work out - they were still being debated in the 1330s.

**The problem with the Bible is that it is, up to a point, fixed: **this makes it difficult to apply to developments long after its completion. ****How to judge usury and the taking of interest is a famous example. One says “up to a point” because the text is not entirely fixed - so an adequate account of inspiration may need to provide for textual criticism, the history of the tradition of the text in its various versions, and so on: because it seems to be impossible to isolate a particular text as the unique bearer of inspiration. The Bible is sufficiently stable for general religious purposes - the problems begin when one goes on to say that every last letter of last word is final and perfect and unchangeable and uniquely inspired. ##

In your opinion which Church is the true Church? In your previous post you stated that Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism were all valid. How can they all be valid if they teach contradictory things?

Peace

 

[Malachi4U]

dennisknapp:

Is Protestantism an innovation?

:bigyikes: Inovation? Anything but an inovation! It is a man made INVENTION firmly rooted in total ANARCHY.

Why or Why not?

Siblings of Jesus or brothers of Jesus?
Jesus is just another god?
Jesus is an adopted son of God?
Jesus is just a human and not God?
God is the Father only and not the Holy Spirit or Jesus?
The Father is greater then Jesus who is greater then the Holy Spirit (subordinationism)?

Need I go on with more protestant inventions? What greater anarchy then ineventing opinions to everyones whim and fancy? The Baptists can only agree on 5 things in all of Scripture?

Invention? Yes. Decay? Yes.

 

[Ozzie]

Gottle of Geer:

## This is where things get very interesting, because the doctrine of the resurrection - any resurrection - was very late. The Sadducees were in that way far more “traditional” than the Pharisees, for they, unlike the Pharisees, rejected it. It was not Scriptural - because it appears only in late books such as Daniel, which the Sadducees did not accept.

The precise details of the fate of the dead took centuries to work out - they were still being debated in the 1330s.

**The problem with the Bible is that it is, up to a point, fixed: **this makes it difficult to apply to developments long after its completion. ****How to judge usury and the taking of interest is a famous example. One says “up to a point” because the text is not entirely fixed - so an adequate account of inspiration may need to provide for textual criticism, the history of the tradition of the text in its various versions, and so on: because it seems to be impossible to isolate a particular text as the unique bearer of inspiration. The Bible is sufficiently stable for general religious purposes - the problems begin when one goes on to say that every last letter of last word is final and perfect and unchangeable and uniquely inspired. ##

What the Sadducees didn’t accept was the future resurrection of the dead (Matt. 22:23). A MAJOR Bible theme. Daniel emphatically prophecied that this resurrection will take place (Dan. 12).

The Bible is uniquely and divinely inspired. In fact, the word for “inspired” is theopneustos, meaning God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). Can’t get more unique than that. Can’t get more inspired than that.

These two issues, according to God’s immutable Word have been settled for thousands of years. Any man that has a problem with them has a problem with God.

 

[Ignatius]

Ruth101:

Why would it be an innovation?

How can it not be an innovation? Jesus Christ founded His Church 1,500 years before the innovation of protestantism, in other words, it didn’t even exist until a millenia and a half after Jesus Christ founded His Church.

May the love of God the Father, the peace of His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

 

[RBushlow]

dennisknapp:

Is Protestantism an innovation? Why or Why not?

Of course it is. One need only look at the founding of protestantism.
Here’s a brief synopsis:

Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

If you are Islamic, Mohammed started your religion in what is now Saudi Arabia around A.D. 600.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

God bless.

 

[Katholikos]

Ozzie:

The Bible is uniquely and divinely inspired. In fact, the word for “inspired” is theopneustos, meaning God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). Can’t get more unique than that. Can’t get more inspired than that.

These two issues, according to God’s immutable Word have been settled for thousands of years. Any man that has a problem with them has a problem with God.

Which Bible? Whose Canon? gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm (A Methodist website)

The Bible is a collection of writings. It didn’t fall out of heaven. A collection requires a collector. The collector has to decide which writings to include, which to omit. To whom was this authority given? When did it take place?

Where is your God-given “inspired” list of writings that belong in the Bible? Without such a list, how do Protestants know which are theopneustos and which are not? What makes a letter from an unknown John to Gaius “inspired” and the letters from Barnabas and Clement “not inspired”?

What authority did Luther have to cut eleven books out of the Bible? None! Four were restored to the NT by his followers, not by him, but the OT books are still missing from your incompete Protestant Bible. The Catholic Church says those writings are theopneustos. You say they are not. I’ll take the Church’s word for it, just as I accept her word for Exodus, Isaiah, Matthew and John, and all the rest of the 73 books of the Bible. The Church was founded by Christ and was God’s Agent in writing the NT and forming the Bible. I’ll take her word over yours, every time.

JMJ Jay

 

[dennisknapp]

RBushlow:

Of course it is. One need only look at the founding of protestantism.
Here’s a brief synopsis:

Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

If you are Islamic, Mohammed started your religion in what is now Saudi Arabia around A.D. 600.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

God bless.

Great post!

So, how many of these “innovations” are valid?

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

RBushlow:

Of course it is. One need only look at the founding of protestantism.
Here’s a brief synopsis:

Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

If you are Islamic, Mohammed started your religion in what is now Saudi Arabia around A.D. 600.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

God bless.

Great post!

So, how many of these “innovations” are valid? And why?

Peace

 

[Curious]

Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

If you are Islamic, Mohammed started your religion in what is now Saudi Arabia around A.D. 600.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

God bless.

nice! i didn’t know all that

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Contarini:

Actually, I’m inclined to think that was one of the genuinely harmful innovations!

Edwin

Hmmm… Perhaps you’re correct…

 

[Timothy888]

No, it protested against the church doing anti-Christian things, the church (organisation) didn’t listen, so it started.

Most Christians left or were excomunicated or became martyrs for Christ, no wonder pope John Paul 2 apologised for it, 600 years is a bit late though, nobody wanted to leave the Roman church, it was the only recognized one in Europe at the time, Jesus saw it differently though, otherwise there would be no Christians in other churches.

 

[Timothy888]

dennisknapp:

Is Protestantism an innovation? Why or Why not?

Your comments, please?

Well whoever is Christian knows their beliefs started with Jesus, there were reforms in the Church, protests if you like.
The church used to reform, when it stopped listening to the reformers sent by Christ it lost all connection to Christs church, what Henry VIII did was a sin, but through weak and ineffective people God was always working. How educated do you have to be today to tell the Roman Church not to do something without getting laughed at?
Certainly better than all the Apostles, who Jesus chose, Maybe Luke would be the only one who truely was educated in those days, but his education didn’t do a jot of good compared to his calling!
Tax collecting didn’t do Matthew much good either.
Fishing gets near, but only as fishers of men, for this you don’t need to know how to throw a net out to sea.
Though throwing it into the see might be a good idea, see how many fish one catches there!
I know Martin Luther was educated, but he never wanted to break from the church of Rome. Pretty ill tempered he was too!
Henry wanted to sin and the Roman church didn’t want to let him, good on them, but do you think the Anglican church is based on that?
I could write an essay on all faults in every christian church, what good would that be?
I think none at all.
I myself with prayer have argued no end in these forums to no avail.
I get a wide range of attitudes, from hate to laughter, because i follow Jesus and not the Roman church, or Anglican for that matter, though that is what i became at one time.
I have no list, just the fact that Jesus and God are the same yesterday, today and forever more. Look how prophets and Apostles were chosen by God and Jesus, see what they needed to be taught, then look at todays church, it’s more theology than Christianity, more pharasees and saducees than Christ.
I fall into argueing more than i want to, i prefer (because of my calling) to do, not to argue about the whys and wherefores, though interesting they are, as long as they don’t stop you working for Christ, that’s why i’m here mostly at night!
Though i could be here all day! It would be wrong though.
Although i have no “Job” i have plenty of work, which i am called to do.
Gods blessings to you
Peace my brothers, peace, be still

 

[BobCatholic]

I hate to admit it but protestantism is in the Bible.

Numbers 16: Korah and his buddies = protestant
3 John 9: Diotrepehes = protestant

 

[Eden]

Timothy888:

No, it protested against the church doing anti-Christian things, the church (organisation) didn’t listen, so it started.

Most Christians left or were excomunicated or became martyrs for Christ, no wonder pope John Paul 2 apologised for it, 600 years is a bit late though, nobody wanted to leave the Roman church, it was the only recognized one in Europe at the time, Jesus saw it differently though, otherwise there would be no Christians in other churches.

“Jesus saw it differently though, otherwise there would be no Christians in other churches” - Jesus saw it differently? Are you sure that was Jesus’ plan? He made but one Church. When did he confer authority onto Luther?

 

[Timothy888]

Church Militant:

I say yes…for the same reasons that I despise “novel theory” in law because it departs from the truth. The problems w/in the Catholic Church did not warrant a split and Luther did not have that as his goal to begin with, but as civil governments became involved he was used and manipulated.

It is factually correct that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide did not exist prior to that time and are departures from real NT Christian doctrine.

With all due respect to Ruth101 and any others who hold a similar opinion, these doctrines do not represent “a return to the word of God” or a departure from error. Protestantism is nothing more than a humanist, man-centered, rebellion against true Christianity and the Eucharist, (which CAN indeed be traced back to the immediate followers of the Apostles!) that has led millions of Christians into error and confusion and resulted in myriad divisions among Christians.
Pax vobiscum,

Sorry as you know i don’t agree, i believe protestantism started through Christ and His wanting to get the Catholic church back to where it should be, only true disobediance of Christ caused the split, through not listening to people sent to chastise the Church.
Well it’s happened now and Christians must live with it.
We all have Jesus and the Holy Spirit to lead us though, he was sent to be with us all.
So we will always be with Christ wherever we are, we shall follow Him.
Yep the devil brings confusion, not in Christ, that’s impossible, yet where lies exist he can, it is a right given him, he is the master of lies.
Jesus is not the Lord of anyone confused, He is the Lord of truth, and rest at peace, if you are confused, He (Our Lord Jesus Christ)will lead you into light (understanding- doing that which is known and true in Him) if you don’t listen to false teaching and will accept the truth and follow it.
In other words if you are a Christian you won’t be confused, you might not understand everything, but confusion will stay away as long as you don’t listen to lies.
I haven’t been confused since i really got to know about Christ and learnt from Him, though i smoke and find this wrong, it is a passing thing, i will stop!
Remember nobody is perfect except Jesus Christ and He was human, He gave himself up to be human at every cost, He followed God.
Luther certainly never wanted a split in the church, but as i said earlier the Church didn’t want to listen.
My opinion is that the Church of Christ, through it’s disobediance was supposed to split, it is a wound that only Christ will heal, remember that there are christians on both sides of this cut, our realm isn’t the earth though, it’s heaven.
Keep away from false teaching,
Look at the things done by your church, repent of them and go on in Christ, don’t look back.Don’t do anything against the Word of God.
(to make this clear i’m not just talking to Roman Catholics here, i’m talking to all Christians, so don’t sit smug in your churches or house groups, with your criticisms, look how you should grow in Christ)
This has nothing to do with searching for the truth, every Christian has found that.
It’s a matter of working out your salvation.
Don’t assume you can deliberately sin (disobey what Christ and God taught) in doing this, otherwise you’re working out your own damnation!
Judge not lest ye be judged! Me too!
Peace to you all in Christ

I am as nothing yet this i feel called to say. WAKE UP!

 

[dennisknapp]

Timothy888:

Sorry as you know i don’t agree, i believe protestantism started through Christ and His wanting to get the Catholic church back to where it should be, only true disobediance of Christ caused the split, through not listening to people sent to chastise the Church.
Well it’s happened now and Christians must live with it.
We all have Jesus and the Holy Spirit to lead us though, he was sent to be with us all.
So we will always be with Christ wherever we are, we shall follow Him.
Yep the devil brings confusion, not in Christ, that’s impossible, yet where lies exist he can, it is a right given him, he is the master of lies.
Jesus is not the Lord of anyone confused, He is the Lord of truth, and rest at peace, if you are confused, He (Our Lord Jesus Christ)will lead you into light (understanding- doing that which is known and true in Him) if you don’t listen to false teaching and will accept the truth and follow it.
In other words if you are a Christian you won’t be confused, you might not understand everything, but confusion will stay away as long as you don’t listen to lies.
I haven’t been confused since i really got to know about Christ and learnt from Him, though i smoke and find this wrong, it is a passing thing, i will stop!
Remember nobody is perfect except Jesus Christ and He was human, He gave himself up to be human at every cost, He followed God.
Luther certainly never wanted a split in the church, but as i said earlier the Church didn’t want to listen.
My opinion is that the Church of Christ, through it’s disobediance was supposed to split, it is a wound that only Christ will heal, remember that there are christians on both sides of this cut, our realm isn’t the earth though, it’s heaven.
Keep away from false teaching,
Look at the things done by your church, repent of them and go on in Christ, don’t look back.Don’t do anything against the Word of God.
(to make this clear i’m not just talking to Roman Catholics here, i’m talking to all Christians, so don’t sit smug in your churches or house groups, with your criticisms, look how you should grow in Christ)
This has nothing to do with searching for the truth, every Christian has found that.
It’s a matter of working out your salvation.
Don’t assume you can deliberately sin (disobey what Christ and God taught) in doing this, otherwise you’re working out your own damnation!
Judge not lest ye be judged! Me too!
Peace to you all in Christ

I am as nothing yet this i feel called to say. WAKE UP!

Where is your proof? Or are we to just take your word for it? Your interpretation, your understanding?

Show me one person who held current Protestant beliefs regarding sola scriptura, sola fide, merely symbolic baptism and communion in the early Church? If you can do this you have my vote.

Until then… sorry, the scriptures tell me to be weary of the traditions of men.

Peace