OK, here is one that will be thought provolking.......Evolution proves Protestantism

[malachi_a_serva]

OK…here goes.

Now allot of people here believe in evolution. The belief of evolution to create man is allowed by the Catholic Church. One celled Ameba eventually = Man.

Jesus said that, “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” NASB - referring to his church.

Now, if we accept that GOD can use a “process” to get to his end result, than we should be able to accept that the reformation was a necessary and needed process to keep “the gates of Hades” FROM overpowering it. Catholic Church 70 AD eventually = Protestant denomination [specifically Independant Fundamental Baptist ] haha (pun in case noone gets it)

Hopefully I explained my thought process clearly.

I think that would be fair to accept no?

 

[noma]

Though I am not Roman Catholic, I do hold strongly to Tradition.

And here is how I would answer this question:

Atomic forces are necessary for evolution, and have allowed for a remarkable amount of variety in our universe.

But atomic forces were in existance, and have never changed in nature, since near the beginning of time.

And doctrine does evolve (and produces a beautiful theological universe), but always within the confines of “dogma”, which is the Principle of the Church.

Change atomic forces, and you destroy our universe.

Change the dogmatic assertions, and you destroy the Church.

 

[Contarini]

OK…here goes.

Now allot of people here believe in evolution. The belief of evolution to create man is allowed by the Catholic Church. One celled Ameba eventually = Man.

Jesus said that, “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” NASB - referring to his church.

Now, if we accept that GOD can use a “process” to get to his end result, than we should be able to accept that the reformation was a necessary and needed process to keep “the gates of Hades” FROM overpowering it. Catholic Church 70 AD eventually = Protestant denomination [specifically Independant Fundamental Baptist ] haha (pun in case noone gets it)

Hopefully I explained my thought process clearly.

I think that would be fair to accept no?

Of course there was a process of “evolution” that led to the founding of the Church. And of course the Church’s teaching develops. But St. Paul makes it clear that the end result is the Church, the Body of Christ gathered from all nations. The question is simply this: do we today belong to the same Church that existed in the 1st century? If we do, then there must be historically traceable continuity. Whether the Reformation broke that continuity or not is a matter of debate–but the burden of proof is on Protestants to show that it didn’t.

You’re taking an analogy and pushing it way too far. Furthermore, evolution is not a truth of faith–it is a scientific theory that many of us here accept, but not as more than that.

The theologically authoritative account of creation is that of Genesis, not Darwin.

Edwin

 

[awfulthings9]

There are several problems with this analogy. I’ll point out two.

First, the theory of evolution, especially the idea of random mutation, holds that there will be “off-shoots” of different species, but many of these will be inferior and will not stand the test of enviroment. In fact, theory would hold that there would be exponentially more failed “off-shoots” successful mutations. One could thus argue that the development of doctrine is the Catholic Church going through successful mutation into a greater being, while the hundreds to thousands of Protestant Churches, which continue to die out and be reinvented and split, resemble sporatic, but unsuccessful mutations.

Another problem is the use of an observation of the natural world as an explanation of the spiritual world. This is the same argument that some advocates of homosexuality use to push their cause, that because we see some evidence of same-sex companionship in nature, it must be part of God’s plan for a sacramental marriage. Unfortunately, it can also be observed that many animals eat their own feces, but I’m not sure that either Protestants or homosexuals would say that this lends itself to any aspect of the true church.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Hi thank you for your replies. Now I am zero knowledgable about evolution. I know I do not believe it.

I guess my point being that could have GOD used the reformation, or the Orthodox split … to keep his promise. That the gates of Hades would not prevail over the church.

Church = body of Christ.

I guess the point being that a CA could not evolke the “gates of Hades” verse to prove the CC is the true church…because all it would prove is that God promised his true body of Christ would stand firm and persevere to the end. (sorry about spelling mistakes)

 

[spauline]

. Catholic Church 70 AD eventually = Protestant denomination [specifically Independant Fundamental Baptist ] haha (pun in case noone gets it)

Hopefully I explained my thought process clearly.

I think that would be fair to accept no?

this brings up whole issue of eschatological views. Augustinians see Church history as one big field of gray, good and bad mixed equally, gradually maturing until the harvest. I don’t see it this way. I don’t think wheat and tares parable trumps the primary apoc data which is the days of creation and the beast.

You see, in the Old Testament progression of salvation, it wasn’t a gradual ascent. It was down and up, down and up. That is, first comes major sin, then comes major Redemption. First the fall and general wickedness of Noahs day. Then the redemption of the Flood. Then Babel, with the selfish pursuit of dominion, then the confounding of languages and calling of Abraham. Then Egypt enslaves, then God delivers His People into their own Kingdom. Then they fall into sin and away from Old Cov, then comes the chastisement of Babylon followed by the restoration to Holy Land and Cov. Then came the OT Antichrist Antiochus, followed by, ultmiately first coming of Christ.

In Church history, I believe it’s the same thing: just as God confounded languages and divided man into separate nations at Babel and called ONE nation among many through Abraham, so at Pentecost, God calls MANY natoins into ONE kingdom, the Catholic Church, through the gift of tongues and Ultimate Cov of Christ.

and just as after Abraham, the Jews are persecuted by Egypt, so the Church is persecuted by Rome. But the Church is delivered, as were the Jews, and there is the glorious establishment of Catholic Christendom. But just as the Jews came out of Egypt kicking and screaming, and just as they kicked and screamed their way out of the Old Cov, so the Gentiles came into Catholicism kicking and screaming, and, BEGINNING with Protestantism, they have kicked and screamed their way out of it. Now all but fully apostate ideologies reign in Europe and her children. But, lo, the Catholic prophets predict a chastisement, analogous to Babylon, in which the Gentiles get a taste of their own medicine for forsaking Catholicism totally, and after it’s through, there is the glorious reunion of Christians (a type of the reunion of the Israel in Judah in Ezekiel), followed by the Restoratin of Catholic Christendom, just as the Jews were chastised and restored to God.

Finally, after the great restoratoin in the coming age of peace, there will occur the great apostasy and NT Antichrist ,followed by the SECOND coming of Christ.

So, no, Salvation history may be a progression in revelation, which is true, but it is up and down in terms of the prevalance of righteousness.

So in reality, the development of doctrine is found in Catholicism. What is happening outside of Catholicism is not development but DECLINE. Look at the facts from Catholic view:

In Catholicism, the following are the sources of Divine Truth, ranked in terms of their reliablity:

I. The Trinity and Incarnation
II. The Papacy
III. The General Collection of Bishops and Oral Tradition
IV. The Written Tradition (Scripture)
V. Reason

Look at history: these sources of divine truth are the victims of heretical attack as we follow the great disturbances to Catholic doctrinal development: the first wave of heresies upon Church freedom mainly attack some aspect(s) of the Trinity or Incarnation (culminatng with Islam).

The next great attack was the great schism (which appropriately attacks the next rung in the ladder, the Pope).

The next great attack was Protestantism , which conveniently continues the pattern: attack the rest of Bishops and Oral Tradition, retaining only [most of] Scripture.

the next great assault was the Enlightenment, which still fits the pattern: attack even Scripture and retain only “reason” as source of religion.
… continued…

 

[spauline]

…continued from above…
Finally, the modern era does not live even according to reason, for atheism is not even rational because God’s existence can be known even from reason. and relativism is no different, as it attacks reason itself by denying any objective reality in religion or morals. and atheism and relativistm are the primary cultural influences in Europe and its daughter societies.

So your argument actually turns on itself: as Catholicism is truly evolving the understanding of the original apostolic deposit, the respective attacks, (saving Islam), are progressively worsening the spiritual condition of man.

Hence, Protestantism was clearly part of a DEvolution of religion.

For more info, you might check out these:

On the Gradual Devolution of Religion (the Seal, the Trumpets, and the Mark)

On the alternating Prevalence of Good and Evil in Salvation History (the Seven Days , the Seven Heads)

On the Similarities between OT and (presumed) NT History

blessings to you, malachi

 

[noma]

I guess the point being that a CA could not evolke the “gates of Hades” verse to prove the CC is the true church…because all it would prove is that God promised his true body of Christ would stand firm and persevere to the end. (sorry about spelling mistakes)

It is clear that you are correct, if you mean that this verse alone would not establish the Roman Heirarchy as the true Church. But I have never known a Roman Catholic who would use this as his or her only argument.

This seems to establish, though, that there should be a visible Church, for the Church is supposed to be the Sacrament of Salvation. If the Church were not visible, then it would not be a Sacrament, and so the gates of hell would have prevailed.

However, it could be argued that evangalism suffices for visibility.

 

[Contarini]

Hi thank you for your replies. Now I am zero knowledgable about evolution. I know I do not believe it.

I guess my point being that could have GOD used the reformation, or the Orthodox split … to keep his promise. That the gates of Hades would not prevail over the church.

I agree entirely concerning the Orthodox, but not Protestantism, because Protestantism clearly rejected important elements of medieval Christianity, which were affirmed by the Council of Trent. Sure, Trent changed some stuff too–mostly matters of discipline and emphasis, but those are important to us Protestants. So one could make a case that Protestantism and Catholicism are both valid continuations of what went before. But Protestantism can’t be the only valid continuation, because if post-Reformation Catholicism was fundamentally rotten then so was medieval Catholicism. This saws off the branch on which radical Protestants sit, and drives them to desperate expedients like the “Trail of Blood” theory or the Gnostic fantasy of a purely invisible Church, or the proto-Mormon notion of a Church that appears and vanishes like the Cheshire Cat, leaving only its grin pasted on the bloody face of church history.

OK, I have a cold and it’s making my writing more baroque than usual. . . .

Edwin

 

[VociMike]

Now, if we accept that GOD can use a “process” to get to his end result, than we should be able to accept that the reformation was a necessary and needed process to keep “the gates of Hades” FROM overpowering it.

The problem with this theory is that, according to this theory the gates of Hades already had overpowered the Church. For nothing is more clear in the historical record than that the Catholic Church (not to mention the Orthdodox Church) looked nothing like Protestantism, and never looked anything like Protestantism. So if Protestantism was the “correction” then the Church was already apostate for 1000 years before the correction came along.

 

[RNRobert]

So if Protestantism was the “correction” then the Church was already apostate for 1000 years before the correction came along.

Which begs the question: If the Catholic Church had gone off the rails, then why did the Holy Spirit wait so long before “correcting” the church?

 

[Veritas41]

Hi thank you for your replies. Now I am zero knowledgable about evolution. I know I do not believe it.

I guess my point being that could have GOD used the reformation, or the Orthodox split … to keep his promise. That the gates of Hades would not prevail over the church.

Church = body of Christ.

I guess the point being that a CA could not evolke the “gates of Hades” verse to prove the CC is the true church…because all it would prove is that God promised his true body of Christ would stand firm and persevere to the end. (sorry about spelling mistakes)

I don’t believe in evolution myself (not macro, anyway). Even if evolution were true, it wouldn’t prove the Reformation was a necessary process to preserve the Church. It’s more along the lines of a mutation – a harmful change, not a beneficial development. Catholics still believe the same things the Church taught 2000 years ago, but the Reformers introduced teachings that were unheard of before the 16th century. They even changed the Bible. Did we have an erroneous Bible for 1,100 years before God got around to correcting it with the Reformation? The fruits of the Reformation have been division and contradictory teachings – that’s certainly not of God because God doesn’t contradict Himself – He is a God of order, not disorder. He is the Author of unity, not disunity.

 

[kleary]

OK…here goes.

Now allot of people here believe in evolution. The belief of evolution to create man is allowed by the Catholic Church. One celled Ameba eventually = Man.

Jesus said that, “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” NASB - referring to his church.

Now, if we accept that GOD can use a “process” to get to his end result, than we should be able to accept that the reformation was a necessary and needed process to keep “the gates of Hades” FROM overpowering it. Catholic Church 70 AD eventually = Protestant denomination [specifically Independant Fundamental Baptist ] haha (pun in case noone gets it)

Hopefully I explained my thought process clearly.

I think that would be fair to accept no?

If that were true, than the Protestant concepts of everything they dissagree with Catholics on would be backed by historical evidence. I mean we would find Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Eucharist as “symbol” and “Mass not a Sacrifice” just to name a few being taught from the very beginning- with evidence of this “faith” carried nation to nation.

But when we look back through historical evidence we do not find these things. They are new inventions. It would be one thing, if Protestants were restoring the “Original Christian Faith” at the Reformation, but in fact it was the opposite. All the things they fought for were rejected solidly at Trent, and Trent gave reliable sources to prove them wrong I am sure.

Ken

 

[kleary]

In FACT we would see several prominent people rejecting all these “Catholic” things, Eucharist and Mass as Sacrifice from day one- for the evidence for the Catholic Doctrines go back to day one- I have yet to see any arguments from Christians against Holy Orders, Eucharist, Mass as Sacrifice…

Ken

 

[awfulthings9]

I guess the point being that a CA could not evolke the “gates of Hades” verse to prove the CC is the true church…because all it would prove is that God promised his true body of Christ would stand firm and persevere to the end. (sorry about spelling mistakes)

Actually, your post proves just the opposite. It proves the validity of the quotation of the “gates of Hades” verse (Matthew 16) as support for the CC. Consider this, the idea of evolution, with regards to God’s church, would entail that the church evolves into a more developed and complex being, not the other way around. Reaching out to all nations and all generations would not provide a logical basis for assuming that the church would get simpler over the centuries.

In the Catholic Church, we believe the in the development of doctrine, where ideas, such as the Trinity, reach their more mature definitions as the Christian community grows in collective wisdom. However, the idea behind the reformation is to strip away much of what the official church taught. This is not a “process”, as your post describes it, but a “back to the drawing board” scenario, which flies in the face of the analogy of evolution.

But back to the verse from Matthew 16, as another poster pointed out, if it was necessary to strip away much of what the CC taught, then this implies that these teachings were in error. And since the reformation happened in the 1500’s, and since even the most hard-core anti-Catholic would agree that the Catholic Church had been around in some fashion or the other since the 6th century (we would say it had been here all along), this would imply that for at least a thousand years the gates of hell had prevailed and that the reformation came along to fix what Christ wasn’t able to get right in the first place.

 

[steveandersen]

OK…here goes.

Now allot of people here believe in evolution. The belief of evolution to create man is allowed by the Catholic Church. One celled Ameba eventually = Man.

That is not what evolution says. Man did not come from amebas; man and amebas have common ancestry.

Jesus said that, “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” NASB - referring to his church.

Now, if we accept that GOD can use a “process” to get to his end result, than we should be able to accept that the reformation was a necessary and needed process to keep “the gates of Hades” FROM overpowering it. Catholic Church 70 AD eventually = Protestant denomination [specifically Independant Fundamental Baptist ] haha (pun in case noone gets it)

Yeah I got it. Our estranged brethren, while fast and loose with their interpretation of Church history, are closed minded when it comes to modern biology.

Hopefully I explained my thought process clearly.

I think that would be fair to accept no?

NO.

While there is a field of study that treats cultural institutions like language, government, religion, etc similarly to biological processes, (called memes IIRC and championed by the anti-religious Dawkins) I don’t think that you could successfully apply that to Christianity.

The problem of course is that the process that God has set up for biological process has no off switch. There is no “end” result. Like the energizer bunny it keeps going and going.

So if you try to argue that Baptists are evolved Catholics you would have to define the selective forces and then explain why those forces are no longer acting to further evolve the Baptists.

 

[Sixtus]

Mutation is a naturalistic phenomenon, not an ideological one