Protestant that agree...

[FredSmith]

There you go!

I learned something new.

I guess, the only doctrines that really matter from my point of view would be those that define the denomination, so I guess I’d have to go with door # 1; “essential”.

I don’t know of any denominations that don’t agree on the essentials.

 

[SyCarl]

Don’t forget, only Peter had Christ-like supernatural powers like when his shadow healed people.

Who else could claim that?

Remember, when Jesus healed a man, He didn’t tell him to confess what happened to any men, but to go to a Priest to do what Mosaic Law prescribed (which included confession).

And He specified a Priest over common men.

It should be noted though that Jesus only told lepers to go to the priest as this was required by Mosaic Law. He did not tell people who were healed from other conditions to go to a priest. In addition, there is no mention in Leviticus 14 about confessing anything to a priest. It was to confirm that the disease was gone and to make an offering.

 

[2ndGen]

I don’t know of any denominations that don’t agree on the essentials.

I guess that’s what makes them “denominations”.



Me personally, I can worship with any man that recognizes the one true God whether they be Christian, Jew or Muslim.

The paths we take is not my place to judge, but God’s only.

People think that I post posts to seemingly poke at Protestants, but in reality,
I use examples that are really reflective of Protestant beliefs.

That way, if they say that something that I post is wrong and I reveal that it’s a traditionally Protestant teaching (such as the Protestant church fathers venerating Mary [Luther, Zwigli, Calvin, etc…]), they can no longer deny it when we do it.

Of course, each is free to worship as they see fit, but I just like to give anti-Catholics anurysms.

They reflect very poorly not on Protestanism, but on Christianity in general.

Pax

 

[2ndGen]

It should be noted though that Jesus only told lepers to go to the priest as this was required by Mosaic Law. He did not tell people who were healed from other conditions to go to a priest. In addition, there is no mention in Leviticus 14 about confessing anything to a priest. It was to confirm that the disease was gone and to make an offering.

Very good SyCarl!

But this isn’t the only instance where Jesus defended Priests and their authority.

Take for example when he defended the authority of The Pharisees;

Matthew 23:1-3
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Saying
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe,
that observe and do; but do not ye after their works:
for they say, and do not.”

Being that Christ fullfills The Law and that The Law is still in effect and will be until His return, The Priesthood continues only now, it is The Apostles who instruct and bid as they were commissioned to do so and today, their successors continue what Christ continued. Only The Apostles were given the authority to bind and loosen sins in Heaven’s name, not laymen.

It’s like Jesus came and reclaimed The Priesthood back into His possession (as He “is” The High Priest Himself).

 

[sandusky]

2ndGen:

Don’t forget, only Peter had Christ-like supernatural powers like when his shadow healed people.

Who else could claim that?

**Paul…

Acts 19:11-12

God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.**

 

[SyCarl]

Very good SyCarl!

But this isn’t the only instance where Jesus defended Priests and their authority.

Take for example when he defended the authority of The Pharisees;

Matthew 23:1-3
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Saying
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe,
that observe and do; but do not ye after their works:
for they say, and do not.”

Being that Christ fullfills The Law and that The Law is still in effect and will be until His return, The Priesthood continues only now, it is The Apostles who instruct and bid as they were commissioned to do so and today, their successors continue what Christ continued. Only The Apostles were given the authority to bind and loosen sins in Heaven’s name, not laymen.

It’s like Jesus came and reclaimed The Priesthood back into His possession (as He “is” The High Priest Himself).

However, the Pharisees were not priests. Priests had to be Levites. Paul was a Pharisee and he was from the tribe of Benjamin.

Please note that I am not saying that there is anything wrong with confessing to a priest. James says to confess our sins to one another. That other could be a priest. I just do not believe that it is necessary to confess to a priest.

I also can see no where any of the special powers given by Jesus to the Apostles were given to their successors. Unlike many I do accept that He gave the Apostles authority to forgive or retain sin but I see nothing extending this to successors.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know of any denominations that don’t agree on the essentials.

I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to my question - what constitutes “the essentials”?

Broadly, there are four categories of possibiility for salvation within Protestant thought: first, the use of the Sacraments, especially Baptism, with the belief that Jesus comes to us through the Sacraments (Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.); second, the “once saved always saved,” (Baptist, Nazarene, Campbellite, etc.) in which Jesus comes to the person via the “Sinner’s Prayer” or some equivalent, and then never leaves; third, “by God’s choice” (Calvinists, Reformed, etc.) in which the believer is anointed by God with faith, and chosen for salvation, while others are not, and are destined for Hell, with neither one having any personal choice in the matter; and fourth, salvation by the “tongues of the Holy Spirit,” (Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, etc.) in which, after a period of preparation on the part of the individual, the Holy Spirit chooses to manifest Himself upon the person with gifts of healing, snake handling, and tongues.

Now, in each of these four broad groups, salvation is seen as not having been received, if the “marks” are not present - the Lutheran must have been baptized in order to be considered “saved;” the Calvinist must demonstrate faith; the Baptist must have prayed the “Sinner’s Prayer” or some equivalent; and the Pentecostal must have the gifts of tongues, healing, and the ability to handle poisonous snakes.

However, these four modes of salvation are quite distinct from one another; they have almost nothing at all in common. Yet, it seems to me that salvation is the most important (essential) thing of all - given that salvation itself is “an essential,” how is it that these four distinctly different groups “don’t disagree” on at least one “essential”?

I don’t know too many people, when the rubber hits the road, who would say, “Well, you be saved in your way, and I’ll be saved in mine,” unless either they don’t think salvation is important, or they don’t think the other person’s salvation is important (while assuming without question that their own method is “the right way”). But, if it occurs to them to identify that, “Hey, wait a minute - that guy reads the Bible and finds something different in it than I do, regarding salvation,” a natural question that at least ought to occur to them is “I wonder which one of us is correct? Am I truly saved, or is there something else I need to be doing?”

This seems, at least to me, like it would be a very important question to know how to answer.

 

[Joans_Soldier]

I would like to add my simple minded logic in this.

I don’t understand what the big deal is in confessing to a priest. I think it’s great! He lets me know the gravity of my sins and what I must do to make things right. When I was living with my current wife, my priest told me in the confessional that he can not absolve me of my sins unless I make things right in accordance to the Law of the Church. Gods Law. God is the invisible creator of all things and the Church is an effect of his greatness as well as something he gave us due to our great weakness. It’s a manifestation of his Glory, Mercy and Justice. He also told me that I can no longer partake of any of the sacraments because I am in a constant state of Mortal Sin. This makes perfect sense! It was a hard truth, but the TRUTH! Jesus would never approve of what I was doing and the effect of his Justice and Love manifested itself in the confessional. I then made all the arrangements to be married by Gods Law and treat my wife accordingly. Let me tell you (and I know I’m preaching to the choir here. Both Protestant and Catholic), but his love, mercy and blessings have rained down on my family ever since with no sign of letting up. I love my God and I respect him. So my question is, and not from a religious understanding, but from a practical understanding, what is the big deal?! If a person tries to become a boxer but rejects the fact that he has to have a teacher that will chastise him and correct him, then what are the chances of his becoming a good boxer? Or if a person tries to become a professional by going to college but hates the fact that his teacher gave him a failing grade or makes recommendations on how the student can better master the lessons, how good of student will he be? The boxing instructor and the college professor aren’t God by any means! But we go to them for instruction in those particular instances because they are engrossed in the subject matters that we are interested in. And going to them does not take away from God! A priest dedicates his life to God. ALL OF HIS LIFE. Who better to get advise from when it comes to making things right with the Lord? And what about the legal standpoint? Do we HAVE to go to a priest in order to have our sins forgive? We can always go directly to God, but lets face it, unless a column of fire drops from heaven or the earth swallows us up, we don’t really know if God has forgiven us. He knows whats in our heart better then we do and he knows if we are being sincere or not, even if in our personal confession to God we make ourselves believe that we are. This can and has opened the flood gate to continue with sin without worry of NOT being forgiven. An example of this is how an evangelical coworker of mine had an affair with another married co-worker. They got married after the man got a divorce from his wife. In her mind she is forgiven despite the fact that she obviously went against the Bible! She would never get away with this in the Catholic church! She would be ousted immediately! The practical reasons for having priests to confess too is there and it’s undeniable. This TRUTH can only be of Gods making. I love my priests and I know they love me!!! Thats why they do what they do. And I know that thats why God put them there. Going to confession is going face to face with the Church, our Sins and hardest of all for a sinful man, Gods lightning quick forgiveness to the person that is truly repentant. I believe that it is to my best interest and necessary to confess my sins. I’m not scarred. And I know I wont go to hell even it weren’t a part of Gods plan to go to confession. Whats he gonna say in my judgment? “Hey, you tried too hard to have your sins forgiven and amend your life! Down you go!” I don’t think so. If thats what it takes to know the gravity of my sins so be it. It has only helped me be a better Christian. And besides, were are suppose to help each other get to heaven. And priests are the ones to help us do that. So again, what is the big deal?!

 

[fbl9]

hi moondweller re; post 264. iwas not giving an interpitation of the text i posed the question were not thier sins retained. the instruction priests recieve is more than i know but they are instructed on how to recognize an incopmplete confession and whether the confessee has true contrtion, if these two requirements are not met the preist can not absolve the sins confessed. St. Peter did not sentence to death the husband but did so of the wife read the text with your eyes open not shut to the idea one has to interpitate ever word. may God help us amen.

 

[SyCarl]

I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to my question - what constitutes “the essentials”?

Now, in each of these four broad groups, salvation is seen as not having been received, if the “marks” are not present - the Lutheran must have been baptized in order to be considered “saved;” the Calvinist must demonstrate faith; the Baptist must have prayed the “Sinner’s Prayer” or some equivalent; and the Pentecostal must have the gifts of tongues, healing, and the ability to handle poisonous snakes.

However, these four modes of salvation are quite distinct from one another; they have almost nothing at all in common. Yet, it seems to me that salvation is the most important (essential) thing of all - given that salvation itself is “an essential,” how is it that these four distinctly different groups “don’t disagree” on at least one “essential”?

This seems, at least to me, like it would be a very important question to know how to answer.

I think that you will find that most in the groups you listed would say salvation is by faith. Lutherans believe that Baptism conveys grace but affirn that salvation is by grace through faith. I know of no group that requires the “Sinner’s Prayer” as a means of salvation. They may encourage it but still believe salvation is by faith. Calvinists may feel that God chooses but they still emphasis that the secondary cause is our faith, ie we are not saved until we have faith. And only a small portion of Pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues is required. The majority believe that it is desirable to speak in tongues but that it is faith that saves.

 

[2ndGen]

Paul…

Acts 19:11-12

God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.

Don’t think I didn’t see that one coming! LOL!

And this leads us into the debate about “sacramentals”…why don’t non-Catholic Christians believe in the use of items (like cloth or holy water or annointing oil, etc…) in worship?

(and that verse spoke of “things” that Paul touched physically, not supernatural like Jesus’ breath or Peter’s shadow…but I invite you to try again because I would love to see an instance where another Apostles had supernatural powers that didn’t require their physically touching someone to heal them).

 

[FredSmith]

I know of no group that requires the “Sinner’s Prayer” as a means of salvation. They may encourage it but still believe salvation is by faith.

The “sinner’s prayer” isn’t a means to salvation, it’s just a way to codify what the Bible says we do to be saved: “confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Christ is Lord”, repent, and place your faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[2ndGen]

However, the Pharisees were not priests. Priests had to be Levites. Paul was a Pharisee and he was from the tribe of Benjamin.

 

[2ndGen]

The “sinner’s prayer” isn’t a means to salvation, it’s just a way to codify what the Bible says we do to be saved: “confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Christ is Lord”, repent, and place your faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross for the forgiveness of sins.

Some would call it a “creed”.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl;3192578:

So you’re implying that Jesus (who was a Pharisee) was “not” a Priest then?

I understand and thank you for stating that. It shows that your engaging me here is of a truly open nature and I thoroughly enjoy exchanges in which the goal is truth.



And you’d be right to not believe that it’s neccessary for one to confess to a Priest…that’s “if” you’re not a universal Christian. This applies only to universal Christians.



Ok, good point…in the spirit of what you see and don’t see, do you see any place that states that the powers that Jesus gave unto The Apostles were “not” to be transferred to those that succeeded them (like Matthais for example in Acts)?

And why would those powers be halted with The Apostles?

Were they temporary powers?

Was there a special qualification for one to be ordained to have these powers that Jesus only gave to The Apostles while He was still with us?

And, if He gave authority to The Apostles and they stated that these powers were to be handed down, then aren’t we to follow what The Apostles taught and believe that these powers were handed down?

Thanks for engaging in such a respectful manner.

God bless you.

Pax

Jesus was most definitely a rabbi but I don’t know of anywhere that says He was a Pharisee. Yes Jesus is our priest but He is not part of the the Levitical priesthood, which is why Hebrews stresses that He is a priest according to the Order of Melchizedek.

I do not feel that the absence of a specific provision denying the powers to successors is convincing, particulairly when under the Levitical priesthood it specifically includes their successors. The absence of this in the New Testament is important. I understand that Tradition would recognize that successors were intended but I do not believe it is scriptural. In any event, when Matthias was selected as a successor to Judas, special requirements were given that it had to be someone who had been present during Jesus’ entire public ministry. That by its nature is a temporary position as all those people are long since dead.

 

[2ndGen]

I would like to add my simple minded logic in this.
only helped me be a better Christian. And besides, were are suppose to help each other get to heaven. And priests are the ones to help us do that. So again, what is the big deal?!

In essence, non-Catholic Christians have the concept of confession all twisted up by years of misindoctrination by anti-Catholic non-Catholic Christians.

The basics:
A Priest does’nt forgive one, but acts as an agent of God (the way Protestant pastors claim to be) in asserting the person’s worthiness of forgiveness. If a man confessed to being a serial killer, but that he wasn’t repentant, then absolution would not be given.

Non-believers tell their friends their sins, they confess their sins to a therapist or to a pastor, but when it comes to confessing their sins to a Priest, then there’s a problem.

The Priest consuls the sinner and tells him what he needs to do to rectify the situation. Left to our own consciences, we might think that it’s ok to steal as long as we’re sorry afterwards, but the Priest will tell that person that we must give back what we’ve stolen therefore, giving the sin no profit.

The Priest is a man outside of society. He can judge our situations without the tint of sex or worry of income or distractions of a worldly life because he is solely dedicated to God’s work.

He is, for lack of a better word, a specialist, not a part time man of God, part time lover to his wife, part time father to his children, part time cab driver, etc…but a full time man of God, 24/7.

My favorite words to hear…

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left power to his Church to

absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of

his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his

authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Spirit. Amen.

Almost every time, it brings tears to my eyes.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus was most definitely a rabbi but I don’t know of anywhere that says He was a Pharisee.

Jesus was of the house of Judah, and a Nazarene.

Yes Jesus is our priest but He is not part of the the Levitical priesthood, which is why Hebrews stresses that He is a priest according to the Order of Melchizedek.

This is because He is manifested to us in the sacrifice of the bread and wine. (Genesis 14:18-19)

 

[FredSmith]

Some would call it a “creed”.

The only reason I wouldn’t call it a creed is that creeds are objective and authoritative, and mutually agreed on.

The sinner’s prayer is none of those things. I wouldn’t argue with someone who calls it a creed, but I wouldn’t call it that.

 

[2ndGen]

Jesus was most definitely a rabbi but I don’t know of anywhere that says He was a Pharisee.

 

[jmcrae]

The only reason I wouldn’t call it a creed is that creeds are objective and authoritative, and mutually agreed on.

The sinner’s prayer is none of those things. I wouldn’t argue with someone who calls it a creed, but I wouldn’t call it that.

I don’t think he meant that the Sinner’s Prayer is a creed; I think he meant that Jesus was intending for us to have a creed when He said, “… confess with your mouth and believe in your heart …”

We do this every time we recite the Creed.