Protestants: Do you trust Jesus?

[tGette]

I am not trying to offend with this statement, just simply speaking my belief: (Though I am sure it will offend, nonetheless.)

Claiming the Catholic Church is wrong is telling Jesus that He was unable to establish a Church and for it to be ever-lasting.

What you are saying is that Jesus wasted His time instructing His Apostles to pass on His teachings (Oral Tradition).

The promised Messiah came after thousands of years of waiting and He screwed it up by letting the Church he established to adopt false doctrine? This is what you believe?

The Church came before the Bible.
The Bible did not appear out of thin air.
The Bible came about organically.
The Bible came from the Church:

Just as a school relies on the teachers to explain the books contained in it: So also the Church uses the priests and bishops and faithful to explain the Bible.

Every book ever written was done because of prior knowledge which was then put in the book. The same with the Bible.
The things you learn in your history class did not come from the history book (even though they are contained in it). The history book came from the history. Even the history class came from the history.
Scientists did not learn about physics from a physics book. No, physics developed and the teachings were put into a book.

(Jesus gave us a Church…
…The Church gave us the Bible)

According to Sola Scriptura…the poor Apostles could never fully be Christians because they did not have the compiled Bible to instruct them. I guess the oral traditions of Jesus were not good enough?

Or am I wrong…did Jesus write the Bible? (That was a rhetorical question.)

So…I ask:
Do you trust Jesus when He founded a Church, which the gates of hell would not prevail against?

 

[allischalmers]

Of Course we do, that is why we are protestants

 

[TriuneUnity]

I am not trying to offend with this statement, just simply speaking my belief: (Though I am sure it will offend, nonetheless.)

Claiming the Catholic Church is wrong is telling Jesus that He was unable to establish a Church and for it to be ever-lasting.

What you are saying is that Jesus wasted His time instructing His Apostles to pass on His teachings (Oral Tradition).

The entire presupposition here is that the Roman Church is the Church Christ founded. If that were true, then you’d have a point.

The promised Messiah came after thousands of years of waiting and He screwed it up by letting the Church he established to adopt false doctrine? This is what you believe?

No.

The Church came before the Bible.

The Church is a product of the Word of God.

The Bible came from the Church:

The sacred writings came by the prophecy of God through His revelation.

According to Sola Scriptura…the poor Apostles could never fully be Christians because they did not have the compiled Bible to instruct them. I guess the oral traditions of Jesus were not good enough?

The apostles were the vehicles of revelation. No one in the modern world is. The apostles also had access to the scriptures. And who says that what you posted is what Sola Scriptura says?

Or am I wrong…did Jesus write the Bible? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Ultimately, yes.

So…I ask:
Do you trust Jesus when He founded a Church, which the gates of hell would not prevail against?

Yes; but it’s not Rome. The Roman diocese has many millions of members who are part of the Church Christ founded.

 

[notsmart]

“claiming the Catholic Church is not true”

Does not equal- Not trusting Jesus.

How silly is this???

 

[reen12]

Claiming the Catholic Church is wrong is telling Jesus that He was unable to establish a Church and for it to be ever-lasting.

Those who accept Jesus as God/man, Savior - member of a triune Godhead -
comprise roughly 28% of human beings. Of this 28%, 14% are members of
other Christian churches, who do not at all accept the claims of the church at Rome.
*

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Some of the remaining 72% of the world, looks on - with various degrees of interest,
as the Christian churches debate which is the true church, founded by Christ.

It has now been nearly 1,000 years, since the first group broke off, and
roughly 475 years - since a second large group broke away, from the church at Rome.

After 2,000 years, 14% Catholic is kind of a low number. That’s kind of small.
*

I think I’d worry a lot less - about what other Christians hold to be true,
saving my energy and concern for the other 72% of human beings, who’ve either:

-never heard of Jesus
-having heard, did not at all accept the good news that Christians proclaim.

Does the non-Christian world say, to one another -
that you can tell a Christian, by their love for one another?

By this love you have, for one another - everyone will know that you are My disciples. *
John 13: 35

reen12*

 

[tGette]

I knew this would not be well received.

The entire presupposition here is that the Roman Church is the Church Christ founded. If that were true, then you’d have a point.

Fair enough, but really it seems there are only two choices: either the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church. I guess the point I am trying to get at is that since Jesus did establish a Church it would have to be able to trace its history back to the time of the Apostles. There are no other churches other than these two which can possibly be an option. If there were, that Church would be historically provable and still around today.

My point in trusting that the God of the Universe founded a Church is that there is no possible way for it to have gone “behind the scenes” (so to speak) and then suddenly emerge a millenium later.

We can trust Jesus in a lot of ways…but are we trusting Him according to these words of Him giving us a Church?

Yes; but it’s not Rome. The Roman diocese has many millions of members who are part of the Church Christ founded.

TriuneUnity,
What is your definition of the Church Christ founded?

The Church is a product of the Word of God.

The Word of God is Jesus…so yes the Word of God did give us the Church. The Bible is more like the wordS of God. As the Bible does tell us there are many things which Christ taught which are not contained within it.

And who says that what you posted is what Sola Scriptura says?

Doesn’t Sola Scriptura say that itself? Bible alone… Meaning nothing BUT the Bible.

 

[tGette]

Those who accept Jesus as God/man, Savior - member of a triune Godhead -
comprise roughly 28% of human beings. Of this 28%, 14% are members of
other Christian churches, who do not at all accept the claims of the church at Rome.
*

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a106/reen12/graph3-1.jpg*

Some of the remaining 72% of the world, looks on - with various degrees of interest,
as the Christian churches debate which is the true church, founded by Christ.

It has now been nearly 1,000 years, since the first group broke off, and
roughly 475 years - since a second large group broke away, from the church at Rome.

After 2,000 years, 14% Catholic is kind of a low number. That’s kind of small.
*

I think I’d worry a lot less - about what other Christians hold to be true,
saving my energy and concern for the other 72% of human beings, who’ve either:

-never heard of Jesus
-having heard, did not at all accept the good news that Christians proclaim.

Does the non-Christian world say, to one another -
that you can tell a Christian, by their love for one another?

By this love you have, for one another - everyone will know that you are My disciples. *
John 13: 35

reen12

I understand what you are saying…though numbers do not prove a groups validity by any means.

This is one of the problems with Christianity. Jesus did tell us that because of Him we would be divided. This is proven with the various churches.

Now…when it comes to evangelizing the rest of the world…how does one answer the question that arises concerning “which Christian church?”. This is why it is important for Christians to unite under one faith and one truth.

Granted the salvation of souls is priority, but continuing the Church that Christ founded is important.

 

[SIA]

The entire presupposition here is that the Roman Church is the Church Christ founded. If that were true, then you’d have a point.

No.

The Church is a product of the Word of God.

The sacred writings came by the prophecy of God through His revelation.

The apostles were the vehicles of revelation. No one in the modern world is. The apostles also had access to the scriptures. And who says that what you posted is what Sola Scriptura says?

Ultimately, yes.

Yes; but it’s not Rome. The Roman diocese has many millions of members who are part of the Church Christ founded.

Very well said.

 

[notsmart]

The “two choices” Catholic / Orthodox must admit-

They set the tone for Schism.

They are to blame, as JPII I think, tried to apologize for-

the scandal of their actions.

Why blame others when the both set the tone?

You still cant agree.

 

[SIA]

I am not trying to offend with this statement, just simply speaking my belief: (Though I am sure it will offend, nonetheless.)

Claiming the Catholic Church is wrong is telling Jesus that He was unable to establish a Church and for it to be ever-lasting.

What you are saying is that Jesus wasted His time instructing His Apostles to pass on His teachings (Oral Tradition).

The promised Messiah came after thousands of years of waiting and He screwed it up by letting the Church he established to adopt false doctrine? This is what you believe?

The Church came before the Bible.
The Bible did not appear out of thin air.
The Bible came about organically.
The Bible came from the Church:

Just as a school relies on the teachers to explain the books contained in it: So also the Church uses the priests and bishops and faithful to explain the Bible.

Every book ever written was done because of prior knowledge which was then put in the book. The same with the Bible.
The things you learn in your history class did not come from the history book (even though they are contained in it). The history book came from the history. Even the history class came from the history.
Scientists did not learn about physics from a physics book. No, physics developed and the teachings were put into a book.

(Jesus gave us a Church…
…The Church gave us the Bible)

According to Sola Scriptura…the poor Apostles could never fully be Christians because they did not have the compiled Bible to instruct them. I guess the oral traditions of Jesus were not good enough?

Or am I wrong…did Jesus write the Bible? (That was a rhetorical question.)

So…I ask:
Do you trust Jesus when He founded a Church, which the gates of hell would not prevail against?

These are all pointed questions for the purpose of fueling an argument.

 

[tGette]

I am not trying to fuel an argument.
I apologize to anyone if I sound rude in anyway.

This, as I always have to say, is why I do not like the internet. The typed words do not convey how I would actually say the words.

I am simply trying to provke thought and learn other’s perspectives. This is a thought I had and I wanted to know if people had answers to them. A search for truth means one must always be asking questions.

I admit there is a certain bluntness to the way I stated everything, but that is so I am upfront with what I am asking.

 

[notsmart]

How can Jesus, be happy with all this schism?

How?

He wanted all to be one!

We are all fallen, we are all in need of healing, we are all prideful.

We are the reasons, for all the blood pouring off his body on the cross, even- maybe moreso, us unbaptised, that reach out to him, imagining his dead body being held by his mother.

We are all to account, all of us. All our sins, he bore.

Would he be pleased to see the ones “he chose” to be doing anything, anything- other than to get that lost sheep?

It seems not here. It seems the goal, is believe what I do or else!

 

[SIA]

I am not trying to fuel an argument.
I apologize to anyone if I sound rude in anyway.

This, as I always have to say, is why I do not like the internet. The typed words do not convey how I would actually say the words.

I am simply trying to provke thought and learn other’s perspectives. This is a thought I had and I wanted to know if people had answers to them. A search for truth means one must always be asking questions.

I admit there is a certain bluntness to the way I stated everything, but that is so I am upfront with what I am asking.

Ok then, I trust Jesus like I have never known how to before. I was Catholic for over three decades and never knew Jesus as I do today as an Anglican for the past several years. I trust him because I have read the Gospels and the Epistles in a way that I have never read them before. I know in my heart and soul that Jesus was born to die for us. He came to do for us what we could never do for ourselves. It is he who saves us, not our good works. Not Mary, not anything but our faith in Jesus. You see, all these things I know in my soul now. I trust Jesus.

 

[tGette]

Thank you SIA!
That is the kind of response I was looking for!
Though I have to say…I experience the same thing as a Catholic. Especially having come into the Church lifting me of 12 years of depression.

I know people genuinely experience Christ in all walks of the Christian faith.

Again…getting around the convoluted way I started the thread…thank you for answering the way I was looking for people to answer. With passion!

 

[tGette]

Thank you notsmart!

These are the types of responses I wanted. I wanted to get what is deep in everyone’s heart to come out. I knew my question would stir some different feelings and I was expecting them to not all be good.

I apologize if I made it seem like I was being condescending with my post.

I love your perspective because we should definitely be worried about the lost sheep. But honestly…if you were that worried…would you be on this forum yourself? Please do not take that the wrong way.

I did not want my post to sound like “believe what I do or else!”. I was just trying to make a point and understand what people’s perspectives are on it. Jesus had many an opposition because he was blunt about what he taught and a lot of people even wanted Him to be crucified because of it. I just hope nobody wants to crucify me.

Jesus taught the truth and I was just stating what I hold to be truth. So in answering question(s):

How can Jesus, be happy with all this schism?

How?

He wanted all to be one!

He is not happy that we are all seperated. That was also an intention of this thread. The fact that there is One Church where we can all be come one in.

I know such responses can come off as arrogant…regardless of the tone of voice.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I knew this would not be well received.

It’s not ill-received. At least, not on my part.

Fair enough, but really it seems there are only two choices: either the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church. I guess the point I am trying to get at is that since Jesus did establish a Church it would have to be able to trace its history back to the time of the Apostles. There are no other churches other than these two which can possibly be an option. If there were, that Church would be historically provable and still around today.

My point in trusting that the God of the Universe founded a Church is that there is no possible way for it to have gone “behind the scenes” (so to speak) and then suddenly emerge a millenium later.

It is our contention that neither Rome, nor the Orthodox preserve the teachings of the apostles 100%. So to say those are the only two options means that one or the other is the Church Christ founded. It’s not a presupposition I accept. Most of the teachings of the apostles can be found in either church, but both have corrupted them to one degree or another. I do not believe the teachings of the apostles were dormant for 1500 years. I’m not a Restorationist. Corruption of doctrine and invention of doctrine took hundreds and hundreds of years. It still happens in one sector of Christendom or another.

TriuneUnity,
What is your definition of the Church Christ founded?

All of the baptized who put their faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and reconciliation with God.

The Word of God is Jesus…so yes the Word of God did give us the Church. The Bible is more like the wordS of God. As the Bible does tell us there are many things which Christ taught which are not contained within it.

The purpose of the Sacred Writings is, as the apostle John states, so that we “may believe, and by believing have life in His name.” All that is needed for salvation is found within the pages of Holy Scripture. The Church is given by more than the incarnate Christ. The people of God have existed since the beginning of time. They are always formed and called by the word of God.

Doesn’t Sola Scriptura say that itself? Bible alone… Meaning nothing BUT the Bible.

No.

 

[reen12]

I understand what you are saying…though numbers do not prove a groups validity by any means.

This is one of the problems with Christianity. Jesus did tell us that because of Him we would be divided. This is proven with the various churches.

Now…when it comes to evangelizing the rest of the world…how does one answer the question that arises concerning “which Christian church?”. This is why it is important for Christians to unite under one faith and one truth.

Granted the salvation of souls is priority, but continuing the Church that Christ founded is important.

I don’t have a horse in this race, so to speak.
]I hold that God exists and is Creator.]

What I fail to understand is this.

At the time of the Reformation, all were quite well aware of
Catholic teaching and practice. But that was nearly 500years ago. Those born into another Christian Church, or who choose a Christian Church - in our own time, have absolutely no reason, whatever, to listen to the claims of another Christian church.

The CC claims to have the sole right to interpret scripture.
Why would a given member, of another Christian church, accept
this assertion. Peter, the Keys, Magisterium, sacramental
system - why would these claims be even looked at?
People do not go in search of that which is already found.
A loving relationship with Jesus.

I don’t think that I’m saying the above, clearly.
I would think that there would be little interest, in considering
the claims of another Christian church.
Why would there be?

I do agree with you, that numbers do not, of necessity,
prove a thing, in terms of theological reality. Yet I do
find it curious, that the original ecclesial entity, of
2000 years ago, holds a membership of roughly 14% of
people extant on the planet. If this is the Church that the
Holy Spirit promised guidance to, 14% - 2000 years later,
makes no sense to me.

reen12

 

[Katia0203]

reen12; couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[tGette]

First I want to thank everyone again for getting over my less-than thought out original post. I need to remember to pray more before starting a thread and review everything to make sure it does not come off sounding disrespectful. The title and the post were meant to draw people in with their curiosity.

TriuneUnity,
I did not necessariy mean it was ill-received by you, just some of the replies I was getting made it feel that way.

I greatly appreciate your opinion. As I keep saying, that was the purpose of this thread. I just wanted to provoke thought which would cause people to either question or stand firm in their current beliefs. And that is what you did. From past threads and this one…it has been pretty apparent that you are good at that.

Afterall…that is the purpose of us coming here right? To open a forum and hope it leads to civil discussions.

(Now I feel like I have been getting redundant.)

TriuneUnity,
This applies to anyone, but I am replying again to you:

It is our contention that neither Rome, nor the Orthodox preserve the teachings of the apostles 100%. So to say those are the only two options means that one or the other is the Church Christ founded. It’s not a presupposition I accept. Most of the teachings of the apostles can be found in either church, but both have corrupted them to one degree or another. I do not believe the teachings of the apostles were dormant for 1500 years. I’m not a Restorationist. Corruption of doctrine and invention of doctrine took hundreds and hundreds of years. It still happens in one sector of Christendom or another.

I guess my question concerning this would be that if what you are saying is true, then that means until the year 1517 Christianity was being lead only by corrupt churches?
The only two choices of Christianity for people were two doctrinally corrupt churches?
So what I am saying is it seems contrary to what Jesus promised. And how did, from the Reformation, people know for certain which doctrines were the ones held by the Apostles and the ones that did not come about because of corruption?

All of the baptized who put their faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and reconciliation with God.

I am sure come Catholics will get on my back about saying this, but I 100% agree with you on this statement. When it comes to salvation at least. For me, though, it seems like our faith should be more than simply being concerned about our salvation…it is pointless unless we are trying to pass it one through the generations. (I am not saying that is what you believe…I am just making a point.)

For example…with the different views different Christian churches have on what it means for one to be baptized is important. We should not be content with the simple fact that “at least we are Baptized”. We should also want to agree with each other as to what Baptism is doing for one’s soul (or in some cases…what it is not doing for one’s soul.)

reen12,

I do agree with you, that numbers do not, of necessity,
prove a thing, in terms of theological reality. Yet I do
find it curious, that the original ecclesial entity, of
2000 years ago, holds a membership of roughly 14% of
people extant on the planet. If this is the Church that the
Holy Spirit promised guidance to, 14% - 2000 years later,
makes no sense to me.

So what you are saying is since it has been 2,000 years then Christianity should comprise 100% of the planet? So by your logical, then no religion is able to claim truth because none of them comprise the entire planet?

I am just trying to understand what you mean.

So, then you are saying Islam is a more rational approach of a religion because in 500 years less time it has grown to a similar number of members. (at least relative to the Catholic Christian Church…not all of Christianity.) ???

The Holy Spirit promised guidance…it did not promise it would take over the world. Again, Jesus told us there would still be family against family (I paraphrased…ok… :0p ) Jesus said He came to bring a sword…meaning…He knew what He began would cause division.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity,
I did not necessariy mean it was ill-received by you, just some of the replies I was getting made it feel that way.

Okay, good. If it was ill-received on my end I never would’ve replied

I guess my question concerning this would be that if what you are saying is true, then that means until the year 1517 Christianity was being lead only by corrupt churches?
The only two choices of Christianity for people were two doctrinally corrupt churches?

That wouldn’t be my argument. I realize some Protestants argue that the Roman Church went off the rails almost immediately. I don’t. It was restricted to a period of time several hundred years prior to the Reformation. The papacy in the year 700 was not what it was in the year 1400. Our salvation doesn’t depend on perfectly pure hierarchies teaching correctly.

Rome does, and always has had the word of God taught within it, and also the sacrament of Holy Baptism (and the Roman church in our opinion does have the body and blood of Christ in Communion, which is something most other Protestant churches do not).

So what I am saying is it seems contrary to what Jesus promised. And how did, from the Reformation, people know for certain which doctrines were the ones held by the Apostles and the ones that did not come about because of corruption?

Scripture. The writings of the fathers were important in this, too. When a Church body’s teachings are blatantly contradicting Scripture, it doesn’t take much guess work to show they are not apostolic.

I am sure come Catholics will get on my back about saying this, but I 100% agree with you on this statement. When it comes to salvation at least. For me, though, it seems like our faith should be more than simply being concerned about our salvation…it is pointless unless we are trying to pass it one through the generations. (I am not saying that is what you believe…I am just making a point.)

And this is where tradition is important and where it becomes necessary over and above Scripture. An example is the faith concisely stated in the ecumenical creeds. Or prayer devotions. Scripture tells us to pray but with the exception of the Lord’s Prayer, doesn’t give devotional assistance to doing so. So the Church came up with things like the church year of festivals to help Christians pray.

For example…with the different views different Christian churches have on what it means for one to be baptized is important. We should not be content with the simple fact that “at least we are Baptized”. We should also want to agree with each other as to what Baptism is doing for one’s soul (or in some cases…what it is not doing for one’s soul.)

I agree.