Protestantism in 15, 20 + years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NorthTexan88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He knew that he couldn’t. If he thought he could get away with it. I’m pretty sure he would have. Please note that his main theology was based only of Faith Alone. Obviously John’s Epistle takes exception directly to such a theology. Poor Father Martin Luther was a torn soul as he approached his rendezvous with death:

From: Martin Luther at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm
:rolleyes: Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans…

Movwater, please stick around a while. Take a read at the many threads about Luther and Lutheranism (and take care not to confuse the man with the movement). I think you’ll find the actual Luther and Lutheranism do not reflect the anti-Lutheran caricatures to which you may be accustomed. You’ll be surprised by what you learn.
 
the cool things about lutherans is that there are similer to the catholic church in the fact that they still say the creeds every sunday they aslo have the liturgy and the pastors wear the robes still.:)🙂
 
the cool things about lutherans is that there are similer to the catholic church in the fact that they still say the creeds every sunday they aslo have the liturgy and the pastors wear the robes still.:)🙂
I’ve just seen your posts; welcome to the forums.
 
:rolleyes: Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans…

Movwater, please stick around a while. Take a read at the many threads about Luther and Lutheranism (and take care not to confuse the man with the movement). I think you’ll find the actual Luther and Lutheranism do not reflect the anti-Lutheran caricatures to which you may be accustomed. You’ll be surprised by what you learn.
Oh, you mean how your hero, Luther, confused the Pope with the papists! I am afraid you are on the wrong side of the truth curve. However, the Heretic Luther and his doctrine were personal and directed against the Church because the prideful Luther wanted to rewrite the Bible to suit his “faith alone” unbiblical heresy! Those are the facts, and that is is the truth!
 
“It seems to me like “thinking” Protestants (the kind who actually read, study theology, pray and think about their faith) should end up Catholic by defualt.”

The very best example of this is Scott Hahn, who bible research has expanded my understanding of my Faith exponentially!
Many good and holy priests also have come from protestantism.

I’ve known several, but the two who stand out in my mind:
Rev. Fr. James Barrand (Eparchy of Phoenix)
Rev. Fr. Scott Medlock (Archdiocese of Anchorage)
 
There is a web page with some information on Luther’s Treatment of the ‘Disputed Books’
of the New Testament. Click here to see it.
Thanks for the link. And while the author questions Luther’s motives, he doesn’t claim that Luther wanted to remove books, or that friends had to talk him out of it.

Luther states his opinions, and admits that they are only his opinions, and saw to it that 74 books were translated and included.

Jon
 
=movwater;11149462]He knew that he couldn’t. If he thought he could get away with it. I’m pretty sure he would have. Please note that his main theology was based only of Faith Alone. Obviously John’s Epistle takes exception directly to such a theology. Poor Father Martin Luther was a torn soul as he approached his rendezvous with death:
Maybe he knew that no one could “get away with it” because he knew the canon had a history of development going back to the early Church. He also knew he could question the disputed books, because it was a permitted privilege for Catholics.
Thanks for the link.

Jon
 
Oh, you mean how your hero, Luther, confused the Pope with the papists! I am afraid you are on the wrong side of the truth curve. However, the Heretic Luther and his doctrine were personal and directed against the Church because the prideful Luther wanted to rewrite the Bible to suit his “faith alone” unbiblical heresy! Those are the facts, and that is is the truth!
“He wanted to rewrite the Bible”. Source please where he says this.
His translation is readily available.

EDIT: BTW, there were plenty of “prideful” characters in that era.
Jon
 
15/ 20 years is a very short period of time. Not a lot will happen but continuing trends should become more evident.

I think Christianity overall will continue to shrink especially in “Western” countries [North America/ Europe].
Sadly I have to agree with your assessment.
 
“Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans.”

Really, how about Bishop N.T. Wright?

Reform Party
By JOHN WILSON

N.T. Wright is arguably the most influential living Protestant theologian. He’s also a scholar sending shock waves through Evangelical circles as he advances the view that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation — Martin Luther especially — misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith.

Some argue that God lacks a sense of humor, but for those with eyes to see, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Consider: The most influential biblical scholar in American evangelical circles today is a bishop in the Church of England who regularly inveighs against U.S. “imperialism.” For a comparable improbability, imagine a renaissance of the Democratic Party led by a devout Mormon from Texas.

This scholar contends that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation — Martin Luther especially — misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith. A self-described Reformed theologian, he proposes nothing less than a reformation of the Reformation, 500 years on — and he does so by appealing to the Reformers’ own motto, sola scriptura, “going back to scripture over against all human tradition.”

His name is N.T. Wright. He has published three massive volumes of a projected six devoted to Christian Origins and the Question of God, the most recent of which argued forcefully for the historical reality of the Resurrection. In addition to his scholarly projects and his duties as Bishop of Durham, Dr. Wright produces a steady stream of popular books, tapes and other resources for the men and women in the pews.

It is this unusual combination of prodigious scholarly achievement and pastoral concern that makes Dr. Wright’s influence so pervasive. But not everyone is thrilled. When a scholar claims that his tradition has gotten one of its fundamental teachings wrong, some alarm-ringing is to be expected. The American pastor and writer John Piper, for instance, is one of a number of prominent evangelicals to send out warnings about Dr. Wright. Another is J. Ligon Duncan III of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, who has singled out Dr. Wright’s influence as particularly dangerous precisely because, among proponents of the so-called new perspective on Paul, Dr. Wright “is the writer who has the clearest evangelical pedigree” and “the largest evangelical audience.”

So what is at stake in this theological argument? “The doctrine of justification is the doctrine of the Reformation,” says the distinguished Princeton Seminary theologian Bruce McCormack. Justification as it was taught to me and my fellow young Protestants a generation ago amounted to this: Catholics believed in salvation by works — doing good in your earthly life would help win you a place in heaven — but we Protestants, following Luther, knew that we were “saved by grace…through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Those words, from Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church, expressed the very heart of the gospel, which Luther had recovered. And there was a parallel, we were taught, between the Catholic belief and the works-righteousness of the Pharisees, so uncompromisingly exposed by Jesus as mere outward show, divorced from inner virtue.

But for generations of Protestants, long before Dr. Wright, nagging questions remained. The Reformed emphasis on justification appeared to diminish the meaning of a life lived in obedience to Christ. Didn’t James write — in a letter Luther wanted to drop from the New Testament — that faith without works is dead? And sure enough, one perennial problem of evangelical culture has been an overwhelming attention to “getting saved,” while another has been a rigid legalism (don’t dance, don’t drink, don’t play cards), smuggling works-righteousness in via the back door.

Dr. Wright’s work is part of a larger corrective enterprise — not a unified movement but rather a deep, massive shift on many fronts, including the rapid expansion of Christianity in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Old frames of reference lose their relevance; new alliances emerge. In the United States, high-level conversations between evangelicals and Catholics, initiated by evangelical leader Chuck Colson and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus more than a decade ago and still going strong, have shown that there is no fundamental contradiction in their respective understandings of salvation — a rapprochement that would have seemed inconceivable only a generation ago. In the meantime, evangelical scholars and pastors have profited from a new appreciation of the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewish context of early Christianity.

We may be in the early stages of the most significant internal change in Christianity since the 16th century — an exciting prospect. But Dr. Wright suggests that the key question for interpreters of Paul in the 21st century “may well turn out to be a matter not so much of comprehension,” as an onlooker following the intricate debates over justification might suppose, “but of courage” — the courage to live as a follower of Jesus.

Who was it, after all, who told us to take as our model the faith of a little child?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

John Wilson. “Reform Party.” The Wall Street Journal (December 9, 2005).

Reprinted with permission from the author, John Wilson, and The Wall Street Journal © 2005 Dow Jones & Company. All rights reserved.

From: Reform Party By: JOHN WILSON at:catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0198.html
 
“Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans.”

Really, how about Bishop N.T. Wright?

Reform Party
By JOHN WILSON

N.T. Wright is arguably the most influential living Protestant theologian. He’s also a scholar sending shock waves through Evangelical circles as he advances the view that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation — Martin Luther especially — misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith.

Some argue that God lacks a sense of humor, but for those with eyes to see, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Consider: The most influential biblical scholar in American evangelical circles today is a bishop in the Church of England who regularly inveighs against U.S. “imperialism.” For a comparable improbability, imagine a renaissance of the Democratic Party led by a devout Mormon from Texas.

This scholar contends that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation — Martin Luther especially — misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith. A self-described Reformed theologian, he proposes nothing less than a reformation of the Reformation, 500 years on — and he does so by appealing to the Reformers’ own motto, sola scriptura, “going back to scripture over against all human tradition.”

His name is N.T. Wright. He has published three massive volumes of a projected six devoted to Christian Origins and the Question of God, the most recent of which argued forcefully for the historical reality of the Resurrection. In addition to his scholarly projects and his duties as Bishop of Durham, Dr. Wright produces a steady stream of popular books, tapes and other resources for the men and women in the pews.

It is this unusual combination of prodigious scholarly achievement and pastoral concern that makes Dr. Wright’s influence so pervasive. But not everyone is thrilled. When a scholar claims that his tradition has gotten one of its fundamental teachings wrong, some alarm-ringing is to be expected. The American pastor and writer John Piper, for instance, is one of a number of prominent evangelicals to send out warnings about Dr. Wright. Another is J. Ligon Duncan III of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, who has singled out Dr. Wright’s influence as particularly dangerous precisely because, among proponents of the so-called new perspective on Paul, Dr. Wright “is the writer who has the clearest evangelical pedigree” and “the largest evangelical audience.”

So what is at stake in this theological argument? “The doctrine of justification is the doctrine of the Reformation,” says the distinguished Princeton Seminary theologian Bruce McCormack. Justification as it was taught to me and my fellow young Protestants a generation ago amounted to this: Catholics believed in salvation by works — doing good in your earthly life would help win you a place in heaven — but we Protestants, following Luther, knew that we were “saved by grace…through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Those words, from Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church, expressed the very heart of the gospel, which Luther had recovered. And there was a parallel, we were taught, between the Catholic belief and the works-righteousness of the Pharisees, so uncompromisingly exposed by Jesus as mere outward show, divorced from inner virtue.

But for generations of Protestants, long before Dr. Wright, nagging questions remained. The Reformed emphasis on justification appeared to diminish the meaning of a life lived in obedience to Christ. Didn’t James write — in a letter Luther wanted to drop from the New Testament — that faith without works is dead? And sure enough, one perennial problem of evangelical culture has been an overwhelming attention to “getting saved,” while another has been a rigid legalism (don’t dance, don’t drink, don’t play cards), smuggling works-righteousness in via the back door.

Dr. Wright’s work is part of a larger corrective enterprise — not a unified movement but rather a deep, massive shift on many fronts, including the rapid expansion of Christianity in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Old frames of reference lose their relevance; new alliances emerge. In the United States, high-level conversations between evangelicals and Catholics, initiated by evangelical leader Chuck Colson and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus more than a decade ago and still going strong, have shown that there is no fundamental contradiction in their respective understandings of salvation — a rapprochement that would have seemed inconceivable only a generation ago. In the meantime, evangelical scholars and pastors have profited from a new appreciation of the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewish context of early Christianity.

We may be in the early stages of the most significant internal change in Christianity since the 16th century — an exciting prospect. But Dr. Wright suggests that the key question for interpreters of Paul in the 21st century “may well turn out to be a matter not so much of comprehension,” as an onlooker following the intricate debates over justification might suppose, “but of courage” — the courage to live as a follower of Jesus.

Who was it, after all, who told us to take as our model the faith of a little child?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

John Wilson. “Reform Party.” The Wall Street Journal (December 9, 2005).

Reprinted with permission from the author, John Wilson, and The Wall Street Journal © 2005 Dow Jones & Company. All rights reserved.

From: Reform Party By: JOHN WILSON at:catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0198.html
Isn’t Dr. Wright Anglican? And not Lutheran. How does posting about an Anglican respond to what Don said, “Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans.”?

Jon
 
“Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans.”

Really, how about Bishop N.T. Wright?

Reform Party
By JOHN WILSON
How do you explain the Provoo Communion [full-communion] between Lutherans and Anglicans? I met and attended Mass where Father Richard celebrated at St John the Evangelist [LCMS]. Neuhaus’ devotion to the blessed Sacrament and blessed Virgin was more important so he became Roman Catholic. There are Lutherans quite willing to return to Rome and I suspect there will be more in the future.
 
Oh, you mean how your hero, Luther, confused the Pope with the papists! I am afraid you are on the wrong side of the truth curve. However, the Heretic Luther and his doctrine were personal and directed against the Church because the prideful Luther wanted to rewrite the Bible to suit his “faith alone” unbiblical heresy! Those are the facts, and that is is the truth!
First sentence: Friend, I do not understand what you mean by this, but I detect a contentious tone. There’s no need to attack anyone’s “hero” - especially if they’ve been with the Saints at Rest for nearly 500 years.

Second sentence: Where I come from, we give the straight Truth; it isn’t curved. 😉

Third sentence: You do realize that Luther’s bible contained all of the books in today’s Roman Catholic bible and the Prayer of Manasseh, correct? Luther translated the bible to German so it could be read in the vernacular to a laity largely untrained in Latin (and thus unable to hear the Word!). Luther did not “rewrite” Scripture - especially not to further “his” concept of Sola Fide, which many Christians hold to be clear Christian doctrine handed down from Augustine, Ambrose, Paul and the Apostles, and -most importantly- Christ Himself. The good Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI acknowledged this:
The wall [between Gentile and Jew] is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

Again, friend, there’s no need to promulgate cartoonish ideas that are, at best, oversimplifications of history and theological concepts or, at worst, entirely nonfactual inventions designed to promote anti-Lutheran sentiment.

Fourth sentence: OK. :rolleyes:
 
.Where do you think protestantism will be in 15-20+ years? I am not only talking about the mainline churches which I know are dying, but I’m talking about the baptists, non-denom’s and that type. Would be interested in seeing if other peoples opinion match up with mine, which I will post a little bit later when people have responded.
There is a lot of history between the RCC and Protestant denoms, and though there are many key concurrences, there are also sundry points of disagreement. It seems the “great divide” betwixt is the authority of Scripture. The Catechism (article 3) of the RCC says God’s Word is venerated, and directs that the church (man), not Scripture, is sufficient to define doctrine. I’m part of the PCA, the conservative Presbyterian arm which split from mainline Presbyterian denom (now called PCUSA) in 1973 because they had strayed from Scripture (female clergy, homosexuality approved, etc.), and the PCA adheres to the truth that God’s Word is sufficient and there is no other writing that is equal or above. That appears an immovable and key point.
The “man/church ruling over Scripture” is not somethng conservative Christians will truly doubt there will ] ever give ground on, and I doubt the RCC will on that end, so it’s kind of the “Never the twain shall meet” scenario, resulting in the continuation of Protestant churches. To reflect Christ, be wary of throwing the word “heretical” around. There’s nothing heretical about Calvinism; it’s entirely Christ- and Bible-pointing.

The schisms within denoms which take non-Biblical stands, like liberal, charismatic and those with a non-Bible adhering agenda will likely continue to occur, splintering and popping everywhere. Looking at historical patterns, there likely won’t be any nice tidying up in terms of liturgy and ecclesiological agreements in the rest of mankind’s temporal existence.
 
“Gotta love it when new posters know more about Lutheranism than we Lutherans.”

Really, how about Bishop N.T. Wright?

Reform Party
By JOHN WILSON

N.T. Wright is arguably the most influential living Protestant theologian. He’s also a scholar sending shock waves through Evangelical circles as he advances the view that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation — Martin Luther especially — misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

John Wilson. “Reform Party.” The Wall Street Journal (December 9, 2005).

Reprinted with permission from the author, John Wilson, and The Wall Street Journal © 2005 Dow Jones & Company. All rights reserved.

From: Reform Party By: JOHN WILSON at:catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0198.html
The author of this article, like many American Evangelicals, has unfortunately confused and conflated the beliefs and practices coming from the Reformed tradition with those originating within Lutheranism–which happens quite a lot. (That is, Evangelicals often believe their ideas come from Luther when they actually come from Calvin and his successors–chief among them, an entirely different understanding of sola scriptura than what Luther had in mind.)

But as near as I can tell, there’s really very little in N.T. Wright’s work that’s at odds with Luther’s thought read as a whole (excluding Luther’s anti-Semitism)–but there’s quite a bit that is at odds with strains of Calvinist theology prominent among Evangelicals in the U.S. and the U.K.–thus the heated discussions between Wright and people like John Piper–and not with Lutherans. Luther, like Paul, uses the term “law” in fairly nuanced ways, depending on whether he is talking about Jewish law, civil law, or THE law (love God and your neighbor as yourself). It’s important to read both Luther and Paul in their contexts, which can certainly be confusing.

And once again we have the canard “…in a letter Luther wanted to drop from the New Testament” for which there is zero evidence and which displays an extremely poor understanding of Luther’s admittedly complex biblical theology. If Luther “wanted” to do something, he simply did it–not a timid man that Luther.
 
Maybe he knew that no one could “get away with it” because he knew the canon had a history of development going back to the early Church. He also knew he could question the disputed books, because it was a permitted privilege for Catholics.

Thanks for the link.Jon
Here is another quote for you that Luther and other Heretics seem to ignore:

Matthew 16

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

16 And there came to him the Pharisees and Sadducees tempting: and they asked him to shew them a sign from heaven.

2 But he answered and said to them: When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.

3 And in the morning: To day there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?

4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. And he left them, and went away.

5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.

6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.

8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?

9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?

10 Nor the seven loaves among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?

11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning the bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ."

From: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016&version=DRA

Jon, the Bible shows that ALL the Apostles listened to St. Peter and accepted his final say on issues like bringing the “Good News” to the gentiles. What was Luther’s problem? Did he feel he was greater than the Apostle’s? Pray on it, Jon, and the Lord may enlighten you and open your heart to all “Good News!”
 
There is a lot of history between the RCC and Protestant denoms, and though there are many key concurrences, there are also sundry points of disagreement. It seems the “great divide” betwixt is the authority of Scripture. The Catechism (article 3) of the RCC says God’s Word is venerated, and directs that the church (man), not Scripture, is sufficient to define doctrine. I’m part of the PCA, the conservative Presbyterian arm which split from mainline Presbyterian denom (now called PCUSA) in 1973 because they had strayed from Scripture (female clergy, homosexuality approved, etc.), and the PCA adheres to the truth that God’s Word is sufficient and there is no other writing that is equal or above. That appears an immovable and key point.
The “man/church ruling over Scripture” is not somethng conservative Christians will truly doubt there will ] ever give ground on, and I doubt the RCC will on that end, so it’s kind of the “Never the twain shall meet” scenario, resulting in the continuation of Protestant churches. To reflect Christ, be wary of throwing the word “heretical” around. There’s nothing heretical about Calvinism; it’s entirely Christ- and Bible-pointing.

The schisms within denoms which take non-Biblical stands, like liberal, charismatic and those with a non-Bible adhering agenda will likely continue to occur, splintering and popping everywhere. Looking at historical patterns, there likely won’t be any nice tidying up in terms of liturgy and ecclesiological agreements in the rest of mankind’s temporal existence.
I don’t think that is true, especially in this part of the world. Strict solo-scriptura denominations fracture often and their solo-scriptura ideas don’t help at all.
I was raised in the acapella “churches of Christ” which you may not be familiar with. They are the strictess solo scriptura denomination to exist, yet they splinter at the drop of a hat.
As a child we would drive across town when there was a “church of Christ” within walking distance, (two blocks away). But that denomination splits into 5 different denominations over hair splitting dissagreements about what the bible says. They do use Calvin’s regulated worship strictly, forbidding such things as organs because the bible does not demand their use.

Just adhering to solo-scriptura does nothing to hold people together when no one can agree what the bible says and means.

You mention Presbyterian churches. Just locally their are several Presbyterian groups all disagreeing on the message of the bible. PCUSA, PCA, Orthodox Presbyterians, Cumberland Presbyterians and others including an organless congregation.

I really don’t think solo-scriptura alone will hold all these people together. You need Tradition to go with the bible. I think that is exactly why there are umpteen thousands of Protestant denominations.
 
4most4christ,
I just have one observance pertaining to your post. You say the CCC gives church(man) the authority and not scripture. This is just wrong because Jesus instituted a Holy Church that could not be led astray by the evil one. Jesus did not institute scripture. The Holy Church existed before scripture had been canonized and therefore does in fact have the authority to properly interpret the scripture which this same Holy Church assembled and proclaimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Your comment appears to me to want to belittle the Church and make your ecclesiastic community’s interpretation of scripture the “correct and only way”. Not true, not true!.

In Christ,

Stan
 
Posters have many ideas about the answer to this question, and I would like to ask all if there is belief in the RCC that there will one day (soon) to be a “one-religion/denomin-ation” church in the end times as prophesied.

Second, let me clarify that, in general, protestant churches go strictly by the Bible and the word of God. Most try very hard to adhere to the firm laws (over 400) written in the Bible; yet, as with some people, different interpretations of the Word of God divide groups into new denominations. Sometimes, these various groups stray far from God’s commands, Jesus’ words, the Bible, Calvinism, and Lutheranism, i.e. Mormanism.

Some of these non-denominational churches are huge and do have missionaries all over the world coverting people to Christianity, so they cannot be all that bad. Right? Isn’t it God’s command to us that we should spread His word to every creature? Are we not all to love God as we love ourselves, to love our neighbors as Christ loves us, and to even love our enemies?

It confuses me to see such a one-dimensional viewpoint here because I think God loves all people who love Him, all people who worship Him, and all people who glorify His name. Aren’t we all going to the same Heaven? I am non-Catholic, but I am a Christian. When I was in a coma in August 2010, I went to Heaven and God spoke to me saying that it was not my time because He still has work for me to do. Then I saw my late husband and he told me that it was not my time, that I had to go back, but that he would be there waiting for me. I only woke up after my brother-in-law prayed over me. I had been in a coma for several weeks. When I awoke, I remembered nothing else…not what was wrong with me or why I was in ICU. Now, even though I am disabled, I know that my job is to tell everyone I meet in person or online the Good News of salvation by Jesus Christ.

Please explain to me why there needs to be such anger and misunderstanding between Catholics and Protestants. I love all people, and that’s what I think Jesus wants us to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top