Protestant Forum I Checked Out

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yea.

Although not utterly unconvincing.

But anyway. I get your point. People should start promoting what is fact rather that what they are told!
 
Although I have no issue with that post. Why do you say it is condescending to ask a fellow Christian to study their history? Personally I really like history and feel a lot can be gained from it yet very (and CAF is a Prime example) llittle realise that.
 
Last edited:
Studying the History makes one more inclined to be a JW or Mormon? People should stop saying that then 😉 I would personally love it if everyone actually did check the history.

Anyway I saw you posted that to someone else and I do not get your point?
The point is “studying the history” is the same paradigm they all use and you see where it gets them.

Peace!!!
 
40.png
MichaelP3:
Yea.

Although not utterly unconvincing.

But anyway. I get your point. People should start promoting what is fact rather that what they are told!
Agreed!!!
So completely happy that on New Years Day someone actually reaches agreement. But I am slightly bewildered and perplexed with the fact that I cannot seem determine what is actual fact in the history and practice of Christianity without relying on information that is told to me, either in written form or by oral tradition. 😯
 
Last edited:
You mean study the Church which had a pope, sacraments, the Real Presence, apostolic succession, the Church that is the Catholic church?
 
Well I didn’t specify but that would be great start yes. All that which is claimed.

Regards
 
Firstly you should convey this message everytime a Catholic brother asks to check the history. They really do that many times.

Personally I just feel Newman should have read some more history. He had a powerful quote which is used too often on here. I am not a historian but my wife is doing her PhD in history so historical discussion are pretty much what I do when I get home. Her topic is obviously far detached from anything Church related but it did teach me how to approach history in some way.

I am not there, I have not found a poster who is and Newman wasn’t “there”. So maybe we can all just agree that we are on a path. History is a great tool and more should ACTUALLY USE IT.
 
Last edited:
One of the things your wife would understand and appreciate is the preservation of historical data and records that prevent people propagating their personal opinions as true history. That is a serious work of the Church which has preserved an unbroken record of events and teachings that become the reference point for scholars and theologians from age to age. Telling people to ‘study history’ is basically to send them to the wealth of resources in the Catholic Church that is unmatched by any breakaway church. We have the benefit of the unbroken scholarly tradition operating in an institution. So in fact the work and study is done for us and the important figures who’ve shaped the Church by the hand of the Spirit, are venerated and remembered through charisms and feast days.
 
So completely happy that on New Years Day someone actually reaches agreement. But I am slightly bewildered and perplexed with the fact that I cannot seem determine what is actual fact in the history and practice of Christianity without relying on information that is told to me, either in written form or by oral tradition. 😯
Perhaps it is because you first assume Christ’s church actually did fall into apostasy of some sort. Even this might very well be motivated by what someone told you. If Christ’s church did fall into apostasy I can begin to understand your bewilderment above.

Peace!!!
 
Firstly you should convey this message everytime a Catholic brother asks to check the history. They really do that many times.
I am one of those and i still use it as real history is truth and is helpful but everybody having different versions of history is what is dangerous.
…I am not a historian but my wife is doing her PhD in history so historical discussion are pretty much what I do when I get home. Her topic is obviously far detached from anything Church related but it did teach me how to approach history in some way.
And i would bet she would agree that all history professors do not agree with each other on some histoical facts, correct? And yet we would all agree that history is not subjective.

Peace!!!
 
40.png
Wannano:
So completely happy that on New Years Day someone actually reaches agreement. But I am slightly bewildered and perplexed with the fact that I cannot seem determine what is actual fact in the history and practice of Christianity without relying on information that is told to me, either in written form or by oral tradition. 😯
Perhaps it is because you first assume Christ’s church actually did fall into apostasy of some sort. Even this might very well be motivated by what someone told you. If Christ’s church did fall into apostasy I can begin to understand your bewilderment above.

Peace!!!
Sorry, you missed my point completely. What other source than written or spoken do you use to decipher what is factual in early Church history?
 
Sorry, you missed my point completely. What other source than written or spoken do you use to decipher what is factual in early Church history?
Sorry about that. My apologies!

Nothing that doesn’t match what the church says. The same church that has preserved the Holy Scriptures through the centuries. If we can trust the church to preserve the Holy Scriptures we can trust her on all things of faith, that is of course assuming you first dont presume this church fell into apostosy. If you cannot trust the church for the historical truth then maybe the book that came from her would be in question also.

Peace!!!
 
Dont look now but you make a strong case for JWs or Mormons. 😱
Maybe , if you define christian church as those who believe Jesus is an angel.

We do draw the line somewhere, as Jesus did with Samaritans.

As i posted i would not, nor would you , point to their church in your town if someone asked for a a “river of living waters”.

Actually, sometimes i think the same when C’s espouse their worldwide unity in doctrine and liturgy etc… The JW’s are quite unified in that regard, even more so than CC.
 
The point is “studying the history” is the same paradigm they all use and you see where it gets them.
“Studying history” is not a paradigm, nor is “studying the bible”. The intent of, of doing it in a prejudiced vacuum, forms a paradigm.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wannano:
Sorry, you missed my point completely. What other source than written or spoken do you use to decipher what is factual in early Church history?
Sorry about that. My apologies!

Nothing that doesn’t match what the church says. The same church that has preserved the Holy Scriptures through the centuries. If we can trust the church to preserve the Holy Scriptures we can trust her on all things of faith, that is of course assuming you first dont presume this church fell into apostosy. If you cannot trust the church for the historical truth then maybe the book that came from her would be in question also.

Peace!!!
The things that concern me came into being after the Bible was produced so I don’t have a difficult time accepting it as Truth and the guide that God intended us to have.

Happy New Year.
 
We have the benefit of the unbroken scholarly tradition operating in an institution. So in fact the work and study is done for us and the important figures who’ve shaped the Church by the hand of the Spirit, are venerated and remembered through charisms and feast days.
Yes, yet we are admonished to be weaned off the “milk”, and eat “meat”. That is, predigested food from others is good to a point, then we must eat and digest the Word for ourselves.
 
I am one of those and i still use it as real history is truth and is helpful but everybody having different versions of history is what is dangerous.

MichaelP3:
Agree, and this has been challenge since the fall at the garden. We have a true history of what God said there, and a history of the “challenger”, and a history of having a spot in our nature to come to a misunderstanding.

Nothing can change this reality, save a change in our nature. He chose to carry this message of change thru people, who became a “people”. The efficacy of being true to His message , both on the individual level and corporate level, was conditional, upon strict reliance on Him. History has shown the ups and downs of individuals and His people, with always at least a remnant being faithful to the exactness of His message. His will will not be thwarted. He came as planned (amidst controversy and a remnant), and left as planned (amidst controversy and a remnant) and will return as planned(amidst controversy and a remnant).

Contrary to some church’s teaching, our efficacy, individual and corporate, is still conditional. History shows it, to those who fully rely on His nature change .
 
Last edited:
Actually, sometimes i think the same when C’s espouse their worldwide unity in doctrine and liturgy etc… The JW’s are quite unified in that regard, even more so than CC.
Agreed and i would think the Catholic church would seem even more unified than it does if it practiced shunning and disfellowshiping as the JWs do. People tend to either shape up or ship out under duress.

Peace!!
 
well, we have all done our share of shunning/excommunicating, and even more. Not sure the more was effectual.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top