Protestant Theology

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Way
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, the “cult” thing is a slur. The Magisterium existed long before Dabny (sp?) in the 1870’s & since the reformation, about 33,000 groups would like to call themselves, “Christian.” The Catholic Church in many ways is much more ecumenical than those 33,000 sects. My point? The Catholic Church, historically, and today expresses the constant and central Christian theology. Everything you know about our Savior, you borrowed from us. God Bless.
lol. “Everything you know about our Savior, you borrowed from us. God Bless.” I was talking more along the lines of newer religions such as Jehovahs Witnesses and the church of LDS. I’m not Catholic, by the way, just in case.
 
Where did all this hostility come from? How comfortable, how contented you are, to think yourself better than others! You are right, and everyone else is wrong! Oh, how can they be so stubborn, to reject the truth when it is so plain to see? Must be nice.

No, Protestants do not now, nor have they ever, approved divorce. My stepfather’s desire to serve his Baptist congregation was rejected because he’d married a divorced woman, my dear mother. Protestants are frequently, however, more compassionate towards the divorced who are not excluded from worship, while the RCC excludes them from what does seem to be the most important thing to any Catholic–receiving the Host at Communion. For whom did Jesus come? The saints who follow all the rules or for the brokenhearted, the sick, the poor, the sinner?

You do your own faith a grave disservice by condemning others–with or without accurate information. If and only if the RCC is the One True Church, how many converts are you going to get spewing self-satisfied condemnation? Be peaceful. positive, loving, open-hearted, you’ll get more converts that way. Or do you care about saving anybody? Perhaps you are content to know that you are included among the saints.

You’ve completely missed my point. How can the human mind truly comprehend the divine? In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul truly said that we don’t see clearly now, but when we get to heaven we will understand. Yes, Jesus gave us good information during His earthly life, but as I’ve said, He was constrained by the limits of the human capacity for understanding and by the clumsiness of human language.

And insofaras the majority of us read the words of Jesus (which were recorded, at the earliest, forty years after His Ascension) in translation.

The story of the men and the elephant DOES apply, because these men with limited ability to perceive (like all of humankind) were doing their best to discover and explain. But their limitations (blindness) necessarily introduced errors, though they were doing their best. We all do our best to understand God and God’s Will, and we do try to do our best. Protestants agree, faith without works IS dead. Faith without works isn’t true faith. That’s how you can tell–the fruit that faith bears!

Even RCC saints have said that it is impossible to truly comprehend the Will of God. See Thomas Merton–“Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing.” koti.mbnet.fi/amoira/merton1.htm

Don’t condemn Protestant immorality so quickly without remembering the immorality of individual Catholics, even those in positions of formal leadership. Remember Romans 3:23 “For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

You say “If that is the faith you choose to believe in, fine. But as you believe it, you must also accept that to those outside it, it appears rather concocted when you cannot find any of the precepts of that faith for the first 1500 years of Christianity, which was Catholic and nothing but until the 16th century.” That’s untrue–there were other Christian sects all along, but I suppose they are irrelevant because all you want to do is demonstrate your personal superiority.

You say “That strikes me as a very confusing system and one that is prone to errors and division with no authority to do anything but sit by and watch the splits go on forever.” I recall that Jesus came to save souls and heal hearts, not to establish any system.

If you love your faith, fine with me. And if you want to start a quarrel, well, you’ve got my answer. I’m going off-line for a while, but before I go I must say I’ve lost my patience with the holier-than-thou crowd of which you are a part.

Think about it.

Dett
 
Which Pope with infallabality was right, the one who said Galileo was a heretic or the one who said he wasn’t?

Which Pope with infallabality was right the one that said Genesis wads a literal account or the one that endorsed evolution.

Even the Popes disagree with each other!

God doesn’t change so how come the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church keep changing?

Why is it that some endorse evolution and others believe the Earth is 6000 years old?

Why are so many round here intent on throwing stones from their house of glass?
 
First of all, you can’t look at Catholicism as a solid unified group, and then mash all Protestants together and wonder why they are divided. Protestants don’t all come from the same source, despite having the same name. There were several different movements at the time of the Reformation that separated, and as well, there were groups before the Reformation who split with Rome too, or from the early Church.

But let me put your question in a larger context. Why, if Christians have the truth, do they not all agree on theology and doctrine? Why are there splits throughout their history?
 
Which Pope with infallabality was right, the one who said Galileo was a heretic or the one who said he wasn’t?

Which Pope with infallabality was right the one that said Genesis wads a literal account or the one that endorsed evolution.

Even the Popes disagree with each other!

God doesn’t change so how come the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church keep changing?

Why is it that some endorse evolution and others believe the Earth is 6000 years old?

Why are so many round here intent on throwing stones from their house of glass?
And how is it that the Roman Catholic church can change how it counts weeks on the Gregorian Kalender from the traditional fashion? It look to me like they believe that they posess the authority to change anything and call it genuine and exclusive.
 
" What separates us as believers in Christ is much less than what unites us."
Pope John XXlll
God Bless. NLM
 
Exactly. I thought Protestants were just Catholic protesters a little axious for heaven. 😉
 
Exactly. I thought Protestants were just Catholic protesters a little axious for heaven. 😉
No they are not.

Look up the title of the thread again. Protestant theology means Protestant churches not individual (person) Protestant theology.

Protestants cannot answer this question because there are so many types of Protestant churches each with their own theology. A Protestant can only speak for the church where he/she comes from.

Thread like this is hard for Protestants to answer. Some of you when confronted with this question resort to digress. Basically you can only speak for your own church. And when you do that then the differences in Protestant theology becomes very obvious. You have Anglican, Baptist, Evangelical, etc.

As for those of you who mention about the division within the Catholic Church - unfortunately that is not what the thread is asking. Perhaps by saying that it sort of making you feel nice about the different denominations in Protestantism.

Individual Catholics may believe according to their own opinion but that does not mean they start new churches on their own. They are still Catholics and practice Catholicism. Until they stop practicing and stop believing the official Catholic doctrine they are still Catholics.

It is different with Protestants who disagree with their churches, leave them and form new churches using the new brand of theology respectively.

As far as the title of the thread is concerned, it is a misnomer. There is no single Protestant theology believed by all Protestants. There are many different Protestant theologies, which are to be found in the different Protestant denominations.

God bless.
 
OK One pope said Galileo was a heretic and the other one didn’t. Which lone made the mistake?

More to the point, if they can make mistakes, then how can the word of the RC church be trusted.
 
Yes doctrine!

One pope tought the doctrine that the sun goes round the earth and one tought the doctrine that the earth goes round the sun.

They can’t both be right but as they were both infallible when it came to doctrine they must have been.

I’m not trying to be disrespectful. I’m atempting to point out that contradictions are found in Roman Catholicism too.
 
Here’s another question. Why should they agree? Technically according to what I just read in John 17 the Prayer Of Jesus, when you get around to line 20-26 Jesus states he prays not only for them but also for those who will believe in me through their word.

perhaps I’m mistaken I’m simply a Catachumen after all, but that may imply that there isn’t just the catholic church way or the highway. So the different protestant theologies are valid ways to get to Christ as well. Thoughts?
and how is this related to protestantism? if i ask.

the prayer here is for those who will hear the Apostles and their successors. do you see protestants listen to the Church?
 
Yes doctrine!

One pope tought the doctrine that the sun goes round the earth and one tought the doctrine that the earth goes round the sun.

They can’t both be right but as they were both infallible when it came to doctrine they must have been.

I’m not trying to be disrespectful. I’m atempting to point out that contradictions are found in Roman Catholicism too.
Did they form a new church? No. They were still Catholics and practice Catholicism. Besides infallibility does not apply here. It was a mistake by the Pope concerned which was to be corrected as more information was found regarding the subject.

The post is irrelevant to the subject of the thread not to mention the comparison got nothing to do with it either.

The OP is asking why there are multiple churches sprouting out from the original Church that the reformers trying to correct? How could they be all right if they are so different from each other?

Unless you all think the answer to these are the dam was busted but many rivers flowing into the reservoir!
 
Well here is a question: Two people, both believe they are led by the Holy Spirit, come up with two different doctrines. How do you know which one is right? Or, do you allow that the Holy Spirit would lead two people down two opposite paths to the truth?
Are you speaking of Catholics and Orthodox here?
Why have differences over this very issue led to all those split-offs of additional denominations or churches? I don’t see how you can hold this equal to doctrines and teachings that trace back to the Apostles and Christ Himself.
Which “doctrines and teachings that trace back to the Apostles and Christ Himself”, Catholic or Orthodox?

Jon
 
Which Pope with infallabality was right, the one who said Galileo was a heretic or the one who said he wasn’t?

Which Pope with infallabality was right the one that said Genesis wads a literal account or the one that endorsed evolution.

Even the Popes disagree with each other!

God doesn’t change so how come the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church keep changing?

Why is it that some endorse evolution and others believe the Earth is 6000 years old?

Why are so many round here intent on throwing stones from their house of glass?
You know, you and I will agree that papal infallibility is an innovation that we disagree with. I think, however, it is important that we disagree with what it actually is, and my understanding is infallibility only applies to when the pope speaks ex cathedra, on faith and morals. I don’t believe any of the examples you provide were spoken ex cathedra.

Jon
 
Good. Thanks for confirming this. Sometimes I write things like this, and wonder later, “do I have it right?”

Jon
 
I know what papal infallibility is as far as how the church defines it. The problem is how it relates to truth. I don’t believe that based upon how the Early Church viewed the Apostles, you could get papal infallibility from that.
 
Questions you will not see asked on this forum:
  1. I’m Catholic and would like to understand Lutheran Theology from a Lutheran perspective. Can anyone suggest a book that I can read that will explain this in survey fashon?
  2. I’m Catholic and would like to understand conservative Baptist Theology from a Baptist perspective. Can anyone suggest a book that I can read that will explain this in survey fashon?
  3. I’m Catholic and would like to understand Presbyterian Theology from a Presbyterian perspective. Can anyone suggest a book that I can read that will explain this in survey fashon?
  4. I’m Catholic and would like to understand the theology of the reformation from a protestant perspective. Can anyone suggest a book that I can read that will explain this in survey fashon?
    1. I’m Catholic and would like to understand the differences between Covanent Theology and Dispensational Theology, Arminian/Calvinistic theology from a Evangelical perspective. Can anyone suggest a book that I can read that will explain this in survey fashon?
  5. I’m Catholic and would like to understand the protestant arguements against the role of Mary in the Catholic Church. Can anyone suggest a protestant book that I can read that will explain this in survey fashon?
  6. I’m Catholic and would like to understand the differences between Liberal and Conservative Protestants. Can anyone suggest a book that I can read that will explain this in survey fashon?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top