Protestants, how can this be possible?

[Seeker100]

I COMPLETELY agree with jmcrae!! I’m glad you pointed that out!

Whatever…

 

[JRKH]

The Spirit of God is in everyone and is directing everyone. Whether one obeys it or not is up to them. If they obey the truth they will not have errors. It is not an error to celebrate the Sabath on a Tuesday afternoon without communion and every body closing their eyes and humming if it is out of love.
It is not an error if people take communion but believe it is symbolic if it is out of love.
It is not an error if people take communion and believe that it is actually Jesus if it is out of love.
These differences are nothing.

To sum it up like I explained in a post to someone else the church Jesus set up is a Spiritual church. It is the Kingdom of God. All the denominations including catholic just point to this Kingdom. They are not the Kingdom. They are just pointers. If one denomination points to Jesus better than others then good for them. Churches can point to the Kingdom of God in different ways. It does not matter how they point as long as they are pointing to love. There is no “right” way to point to love.

**God gave us something better than an authoratative church run by people who make errors. He gives us his Spirit.

Thus people can be contradictory in their views (eg communion etc) but when all is pointing to God both are right even though the views on certain issues are different.**

Actually God gave us BOTH His Spirit AND an Authoritative Church. This is where you lose sight of the central Truth.
Several times I have mentioned the passage in Mt 18:15-18 where Christ gives instructions on how to deal with disagreements. You will note that the ultimate step is not to “agree to disagree” or “let it go if all is believed in Love”. The final step is to …“Tell it To The Church…” and be prepared for consequenses if you do not listen to The Church. This is significant for two interrelated reasons.
First is that this verse undercuts the idea of The Church being simply the "Spiritual Body of Believers and not having authority to make determinations for the universal Church. Such a body is unable to enforce or even effectively determine Truth within itself. If the protestant position were true, then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. After all Protestants are quick to point out that Jesus also says that “Where two or three are joined together in my name, there am I” But instead Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment. Just look at Acts 15 for an example of something being brought before The Church for resolution.

Second this verse denies your idea of different beliefs being OK. In Acts 15, The Judiazers were not trying to deny Christ as the Messiah, they were only acting in Love for God and neighbor, and living according to what was recorded in Scripture. This “Bible Truth” they brought to the Antiochian Christians. That they needed to live the Mosaic Law which, after all was given by God Himself to the Jewish People.
It was St Paul who said, Wait a minute, this doesn’t sound right. St Paul, who we will ALL agree certianly was being led by Christ, did NOT agree that both sides were right. If he had, the matter would have been settled without the trip to Jerusalem and the Jewish Christians would have continued to circumsize, while the Gentile Christians would not circumsize.
You’ll note that this is not what happened. The matter was settled by Church Council in Jerusalem. The Church, acting on their God given Authority to Bind and Loose, made a decision that was binding, not only on Antioch, but on every Christian everywhere.

Now - How does this relate to your Idea of different beliefs on something as fundamental as communion? Christ Himself said that, “Unless you Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood you have No Life Within you.” Many disciples left upon hearing this - The teaching was too hard. Jesus left them go without explanation. Paul preached that one should not recieve communion Unworthily" lest you eat and drink “condemnation” on yourself.

The Church United, Long before there were any splits, believed and taught that the Eucharist is the REAL Presence of Christ. Even after the split between the Eastern and Western Churches there was never any disagreement about the Eucharist being the REAL Presence.
The term “Transubstantiation” was used in the writings of …Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood.” (from wikipedia)
So we see the long and consistant belief in the Church of the Real Presence.

It is only with the Protestant reformation that we see this idea of “Symbolic” presence creeping in. This is not a case of an “unimportant issue”. This is a case where Jesus Died to Give us His Actual Body and Blood that by eating and drinking we might have Life.
This is nothing less than the Devil himself infiltrating the Christian community and stealing the Life giving Food of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Yet you believe this lie. This lie that says, Oh it’s alright if someone holds a differing view. It’s no big deal.

While I might be able to agree with you that some issues are unimportant, this one is not.

Peace
James

 

[Seeker100]

Actually God gave us BOTH His Spirit AND an Authoritative Church. This is where you lose sight of the central Truth.
Several times I have mentioned the passage in Mt 18:15-18 where Christ gives instructions on how to deal with disagreements. You will note that the ultimate step is not to “agree to disagree” or “let it go if all is believed in Love”. The final step is to …“Tell it To The Church…” and be prepared for consequenses if you do not listen to The Church. This is significant for two interrelated reasons.
First is that this verse undercuts the idea of The Church being simply the "Spiritual Body of Believers and not having authority to make determinations for the universal Church. Such a body is unable to enforce or even effectively determine Truth within itself. If the protestant position were true, then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. After all Protestants are quick to point out that Jesus also says tht “Where two or three are joined together in my name, there am I” But instead Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment is to be accepted. Just look at Acts 15 for an example of something being brought beofre The Church for resolution.

Second this verse denies your idea of different beliefs being OK. In Acts 15, The Judiazers were not trying to deny Christ as the Messiah, they were only acting in Love and living according to what was recorded in Scripture. This “Bible Truth” they brought to the Antiochian Christians.
It was St Paul who said, Wait a minute, this doesn’t sound right. Yet St Paul, who we will ALL agree certianly was being led by Christ, did NOT agree that both sides were right. If he had, the matter would have been settled without the trip to Jerusalem and the Jewish Christians would have continued to circumsize, while the Gentile Christians would not circumsize.
You’ll note that this is not what happened. The matter was settled by Church Council in Jerusalem. The Church, acting on their God given Authority to Bind and Loose, made a decision that was binding, not only on Antioch, but on every Christian Church everywhere.

Now - How does this relate to your Idea of different beliefs on something as fundamental as communion? Christ Himslef said that, “Unless you Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood you have No Life Within you.” Many disciples left upon hearing this - The teaching was too hard. Jesus left them go without explanation. Paul preached that one should not recieve communion Unworthily" lest you eat and drink “condemnation” on yourself.

The Church united, Long before there were any splits, believed and taught that the Eucharist is the REAL Presence of Christ. Even after teh split between the Eastern and Western Churches there was never any disagreement about the Eucharist bein the REAL Presence.
The term “Transubstantiation” was used in the writings of …Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood.” (from wikipedia)

It is only with the Protestant reformation that we see this idea of “Symbolic” presence creeping in. This is not a case of an “unimportant issue”. This is a case where Jesus Died to Give us His Actual Body and Blood that by eating and drinking we might have Life Eternal.
This is nothing less than the Devil himself infiltrating the Christian community and stealing the Life giving Food of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Yet you believe this lie. This lie that says, Oh it’s alright if someone holds a differing view. It’s no big deal.

While I might be able to agree with you that some issues are unimportant, this one is not.

Peace
James

I have the Holy Spirit in me. I have the life of God in me. I have the joy of God. I see Jesus in everyone I meet. I am a Quaker and we do not even have communion at all. I don’t have Catholic communion or even Protestant communion but I do have the life!!

Praise the Lord!!

 

[JRKH]

That was actually a fascinating thread. I think more can be added. Off the top of my head.

• Beliefs on origins (creation)
• Beliefs on the deluge (Noah’s ark)
• And then there are 100s of beliefs on whether any certain activity is sin or OK with God (from playing cards to homosexuality). You might want to have one major classification here for simplicity, but there are probably 100s of specifics.

Yes we could have gotten a whole other list of belief issues but we tried to limit it to the really basic essentials. Your first two, to me seem like part of the same thing which would be “creationism” and the literal acceptance of every historical event in the Bible.

That having been said, it begs the question on how many belief systems are possible within Catholicism. Now I know that the correct answer is 1, but in reality I know that multiple belief systems are possible on origins (I have read a Catholic geocentrist), gifts of the Holy Spirit (Charismatic or not) and I am sure there are others.

You know this raises a good point and one that is not often brought up. Only today I heard someone quote G.K. Chesterton saying, “The Catholic Church is larger on the inside than it is on the outside”, Which made me think of anothr qoute of his, “The Catholic Church has walls, but they are walls around a playground” (or something close to that).

Both of these things speak to the great variety of devotional aspects of the Catholic Church from the Pragmatic, to the Philosophical, to the Logical, to the Mystical, to the etc… Personally to much detail tends to put me to sleep and so I lean more toward the mystical aspects of the faith. Others here on the board, just Love to discuss things in great detail using all of the classical rules of “Logic” their in arguments. Others, are very devout and prayerful, folks who live their faith simply within their parish life.
The Church embraces all of these and more while still assuring that the purity of the Gospel is preserved and promoted.

I liked this question so much I started another thread HERE to address it.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I have the Holy Spirit in me. I have the life of God in me. I have the joy of God. I see Jesus in everyone I meet. I am a Quaker and we do not even have communion at all. I don’t have Catholic communion or even Protestant communion but I do have the life!!

Praise the Lord!!

Are you sure, when you,
a) do not obey Christ’s command to Eat his Body and Drink His Blood. and
b) do not obey Christ’s command to “Be One as The Father and I are ONe”
c) refuse to submit to the authority of The Church.

This gives me concern for the salvation of your soul.
I’m not “damning” you for only God does that, but when I see a Christian who is ignoring the very clear commands of Christ, I must point it out.

Please don’t get me wrong, I have great love and respect for the Quakers. You have the central core of Christ’s teaching, the Great Commandment of Love, and you live it out well. This is a good thing. But you sacrifice so much as the same time. The Eucharist being the greatest loss you suffer.

Someone earlier mentioned that there are different “Belief systems” within Catholicism which is quite true. The one that perhaps most closely resembles the Quaker system would perhaps be the Franciscans. Very low key, very spiritual people. In addition they, like many of the religious orders, have what are called “third orders” which are composed of lay people who embrace the order’s charism without actually entering the order as a priest, brother, or sister.

This is something to be said for the “inclusiveness” of the catholic Church for different “belief systems”.

Peace
James

 

[Seeker100]

Are you sure, when you,
a) do not obey Christ’s command to Eat his Body and Drink His Blood. and
b) do not obey Christ’s command to “Be One as The Father and I are ONe”
c) refuse to submit to the authority of The Church.

This gives me concern for the salvation of your soul.
I’m not “damning” you for only God does that, but when I see a Christian who is ignoring the very clear commands of Christ, I must point it out.

Please don’t get me wrong, I have great love and respect for the Quakers. You have the central core of Christ’s teaching, the Great Commandment of Love, and you live it out well. This is a good thing. But you sacrifice so much as the same time. The Eucharist being the greatest loss you suffer.

Someone earlier mentioned that there are different “Belief systems” within Catholicism which is quite true. The one that perhaps most closely resembles the Quaker system would perhaps be the Franciscans. Very low key, very spiritual people. In addition they, like many of the religious orders, have what are called “third orders” which are composed of lay people who embrace the order’s charism without actually entering the order as a priest, brother, or sister.

This is something to be said for the “inclusiveness” of the catholic Church for different “belief systems”.

Peace
James

I appreciate your concern however I feel that I am doing the will of God. I believe that the command about eating flesh etc is a spiritual command. Jesus was talking of spiritual things not physical. Thus I do that in a spiritual way. I am one with the Father as I am one with Christ in obeying his plan for my life. I submit to the authority of God’s church which is a spiritual one that transcends all denominations. Thus I believe I am fulfilling God’s will. God gives me joy and peace.

 

[mlz]

PJM and Tim,
It is a sad situation for Christ’s Church that we are so divided, in direct contradiction of His call for unity. Whether it be 30,000 or 2, the ministry of His Church is wounded by division, and we all share a level of responsibility for it, and an obligation to pray for and work for unity.

Jon

Amen to that! Well put.
mlz

 

[Anna_Scott]

Actually God gave us BOTH His Spirit AND an Authoritative Church. This is where you lose sight of the central Truth.

Several times I have mentioned the passage in Mt 18:15-18 where Christ gives instructions on how to deal with disagreements. You will note that the ultimate step is not to “agree to disagree” or “let it go if all is believed in Love”. The final step is to …“Tell it To The Church…” and be prepared for consequenses if you do not listen to The Church. This is significant for two interrelated reasons.

First is that this verse undercuts the idea of The Church being simply the "Spiritual Body of Believers and not having authority to make determinations for the universal Church. Such a body is unable to enforce or even effectively determine Truth within itself. If the protestant position were true, then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. After all Protestants are quick to point out that Jesus also says that “Where two or three are joined together in my name, there am I” But instead Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment. Just look at Acts 15 for an example of something being brought before The Church for resolution.

Second this verse denies your idea of different beliefs being OK. In Acts 15, The Judiazers were not trying to deny Christ as the Messiah, they were only acting in Love for God and neighbor, and living according to what was recorded in Scripture. This “Bible Truth” they brought to the Antiochian Christians. That they needed to live the Mosaic Law which, after all was given by God Himself to the Jewish People.
It was St Paul who said, Wait a minute, this doesn’t sound right. St Paul, who we will ALL agree certianly was being led by Christ, did NOT agree that both sides were right. If he had, the matter would have been settled without the trip to Jerusalem and the Jewish Christians would have continued to circumsize, while the Gentile Christians would not circumsize.

You’ll note that this is not what happened. The matter was settled by Church Council in Jerusalem. The Church, acting on their God given Authority to Bind and Loose, made a decision that was binding, not only on Antioch, but on every Christian everywhere.

Now - How does this relate to your Idea of different beliefs on something as fundamental as communion? Christ Himself said that, “Unless you Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood you have No Life Within you.” Many disciples left upon hearing this - The teaching was too hard. Jesus left them go without explanation. Paul preached that one should not recieve communion Unworthily" lest you eat and drink “condemnation” on yourself.

The Church United, Long before there were any splits, believed and taught that the Eucharist is the REAL Presence of Christ. Even after the split between the Eastern and Western Churches there was never any disagreement about the Eucharist being the REAL Presence.

The term “Transubstantiation” was used in the writings of …Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood.” (from wikipedia)
So we see the long and consistant belief in the Church of the Real Presence.

It is only with the Protestant reformation that we see this idea of “Symbolic” presence creeping in. This is not a case of an “unimportant issue”. This is a case where Jesus Died to Give us His Actual Body and Blood that by eating and drinking we might have Life.

This is nothing less than the Devil himself infiltrating the Christian community and stealing the Life giving Food of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Yet you believe this lie. This lie that says, Oh it’s alright if someone holds a differing view. It’s no big deal.

While I might be able to agree with you that some issues are unimportant, this one is not.

Peace
James

James:

I find your post to be very informative and I am pondering your words.

I think the points you made regarding “instructions on how to deal with disagreements” should make us all stop and reevaluate the many diverse beliefs within the Protestant Sector.

There are so many different interpretations, of not only the Bible, but on the meaning of the 5 Solas of Protestantism.

For example, Protestants do not agree on the definition of “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone.) Some Protestants believe “tradition” plays a role in “Sola Scriptura,” citing doctrines like the Trinity, which were not “articulated,” until the Council of Nicea–tradition is considered.

The understanding of “tradition” is also in dispute, since the word “tradition” brings the Catholic Church to mind. The debate over Sola Scriptura led to a Solo Scriptura --in reference to the belief that all one needs to interpret Scripture, is the Bible and the Holy Spirit–which many Protestants think was the original definition of Sola Scriptura.

This is a link to one of many discussions, online. I do not know the author, nor can I vouch for the site. This is just an example of the Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura debate within Protestantism.

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

As I said yesterday, sometimes I feeling like I am drowning in the “sea of Protestant voices.” All I can say is, God help us all.

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

James:

I find your post to be very informative and I am pondering your words.

I think the points you made regarding “instructions on how to deal with disagreements” should make us all stop and reevaluate the many diverse beliefs within the Protestant Sector.

There are so many different interpretations, of not only the Bible, but on the meaning of the 5 Solas of Protestantism.

For example, Protestants do not agree on the definition of “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone.) Some Protestants believe “tradition” plays a role in “Sola Scriptura,” citing doctrines like the Trinity, which were not “articulated,” until the Council of Nicea–tradition is considered.

The understanding of “tradition” is also in dispute, since the word “tradition” brings the Catholic Church to mind. The debate over Sola Scriptura led to a Solo Scriptura --in reference to the belief that all one needs to interpret Scripture, is the Bible and the Holy Spirit–which many Protestants think was the original definition of Sola Scriptura.

This is a link to one of many discussions, online. I do not know the author, nor can I vouch for the site. This is just an example of the Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura debate within Protestantism.

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

As I said yesterday, sometimes I feeling like I am drowning in the “sea of Protestant voices.” All I can say is, God help us all.

Anna

The author of your link is Keith Mathison. He is excellent! I believe he is linked to RC Sproul’s ministry too. A must read is his book Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God. The book is an easy read, and you will understand that the Left Behind escathology is truly fiction.

Author

Keith A. Mathison received the Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary. He is the author of Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?

 

[Anna_Scott]

James:

I find your post to be very informative and I am pondering your words.

I think the points you made regarding “instructions on how to deal with disagreements” should make us all stop and reevaluate the many diverse beliefs within the Protestant Sector.

There are so many different interpretations, of not only the Bible, but on the meaning of the 5 Solas of Protestantism.

For example, Protestants do not agree on the definition of “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone.) Some Protestants believe “tradition” plays a role in “Sola Scriptura,” citing doctrines like the Trinity, which were not “articulated,” until the Council of Nicea–tradition is considered.

The understanding of “tradition” is also in dispute, since the word “tradition” brings the Catholic Church to mind. The debate over Sola Scriptura led to a Solo Scriptura --in reference to the belief that all one needs to interpret Scripture, is the Bible and the Holy Spirit–which many Protestants think was the original definition of Sola Scriptura.

This is a link to one of many discussions, online. I do not know the author, nor can I vouch for the site. This is just an example of the Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura debate within Protestantism.

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

As I said yesterday, sometimes I feeling like I am drowning in the “sea of Protestant voices.” All I can say is, God help us all.

Anna

The author of your link is Keith Mathison. He is excellent! I believe he is linked to RC Sproul’s ministry too. A must read is his book Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God. The book is an easy read, and you will understand that the Left Behind escathology is truly fiction.

Author

Keith A. Mathison received the Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary. He is the author of Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?

Thanks for the information, Adam.

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

Thanks for the information, Adam.

Anna

Your welcome. God will reward you for seeking after Him with all of your mind and your heart.

 

[mpjw2]

I am new to this website and all I keep reading is arguments for one particular Church or the other.God said we should love each other as we would want to be loved .Does it matter if you are a Catholic,Protestant,Buddist or Athetist.I think as long as you treat your felow man as you would be treated then you are a good person.Follow the ten commandments and ask God to guide you.

welcome aboard anna marie,

Jesus does encourage us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, treat others as we want others to treat us

you might be interested in posting in this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=376693

 

[mpjw2]

I am new to this website and all I keep reading is arguments for one particular Church or the other…Does it matter if you are a Catholic,Protestant,Buddist or Athetist.I think as long as you treat your felow man as you would be treated then you are a good person.Follow the ten commandments and ask God to guide you.

hi anna marie

welcome aboard

God said we should love each other as we would want to be loved

yes He did

Does it matter if you are a Catholic,Protestant,Buddist or Athetist

not at all…love all people

anna, you might be interested in the following thread which is focused on Jesus’ love for all of us and how he wants us to show His love to others

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=376693

God bless

mpjw2

 

[JRKH]

I appreciate your concern however I feel that I am doing the will of God. I believe that the command about eating flesh etc is a spiritual command. Jesus was talking of spiritual things not physical. Thus I do that in a spiritual way. I am one with the Father as I am one with Christ in obeying his plan for my life. I submit to the authority of God’s church which is a spiritual one that transcends all denominations. Thus I believe I am fulfilling God’s will. God gives me joy and peace.

I know that you do feel that you are doing the will of God and I do not wish to seem judgemental. I hope I do not come off that way to you. God alone will, “seperate the wheat from the chaff.”
You have presented your points in Charity, if not always with clarity. The biggest point I received is a reminder that Love is central and we ALL need to approach these conversations in Christian Charity and resist the carnal impulse to unchristian arguing.
I do hope that I, along with others here, have presented you with points to consider as well. And one that I often think we don’t articulate very well here is that, many times when a person comes into the Catholic Church from a protestatn one, they do not have to leave behind many of their former beliefs. Rather they find those beliefs and desires fulfilled in the Catholic Church. I think that you would find this to be so as well.

I pray someday to meet you in heaven as we sing praise before our Creator in Glorious and Perfect Love.

Peace
James

 

[mpjw2]

Originally Posted by JonNC

PJM and Tim,
It is a sad situation for Christ’s Church that we are so divided, in direct contradiction of His call for unity. Whether it be 30,000 or 2, the ministry of His Church is wounded by division, and we all share a level of responsibility for it, and an obligation to pray for and work for unity.

mlz

Amen to that! Well put.

hi PJM, Tim, mlz I am in full agreemrnt too…we need to start showing the world unity…how else can we christians attract the lost world to the love of Jesus?

that is why i started a new thread which promotes unity for the love of Jesus…

come in and be blessed as much as the others have been with the words of encouragement by other christians

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=376693

God bless…

mpjw2

 

[JRKH]

James:

I find your post to be very informative and I am pondering your words.

I think the points you made regarding “instructions on how to deal with disagreements” should make us all stop and reevaluate the many diverse beliefs within the Protestant Sector.

There are so many different interpretations, of not only the Bible, but on the meaning of the 5 Solas of Protestantism.

For example, Protestants do not agree on the definition of “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone.) Some Protestants believe “tradition” plays a role in “Sola Scriptura,” citing doctrines like the Trinity, which were not “articulated,” until the Council of Nicea–tradition is considered.

The understanding of “tradition” is also in dispute, since the word “tradition” brings the Catholic Church to mind. The debate over Sola Scriptura led to a Solo Scriptura --in reference to the belief that all one needs to interpret Scripture, is the Bible and the Holy Spirit–which many Protestants think was the original definition of Sola Scriptura.

This is a link to one of many discussions, online. I do not know the author, nor can I vouch for the site. This is just an example of the Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura debate within Protestantism.

the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

As I said yesterday, sometimes I feeling like I am drowning in the “sea of Protestant voices.” All I can say is, God help us all.

Anna

Anna,
Thank you fro you kind words. It was actually the passage in Mt 18:15-18 that really settled the question of Church authority for me.
I have never had a protestant give a satisfactory response to it using the unstructured or divided, “Body of Believers” definition of “Church”. I even ran a thread while back on the subject of **How Protestants “Tell it To The Church” **. Have a Look. The upshot was that most all protestant churches develop a sort of “mini-magisterium” to deal with such matters. They do not take it before the entire church community and If someone is ruled against they are asked to recant or leave that community. But of course that does not preclude this person joining another community or even starting their own which, within a generation or two could be just as “accepted” as all the others.
In short these “Churches” authority to “Bind and Loose” ends at their front door, and their very rejection of a universal authoriative Church undercuts their abilbity to legitimately tell someone else they are wrong.

There are two things at the center of the “protestant sea of voices” problem.
The first is the Bible, which many wish to hold up as Authority, yet they cannot agree on what it says. They claim the 'holy Spirit", but if this were true we might see 1 or 3 noncatholic Christian Churches, but not several hundred or several thousand differing belief systems.
The Second is their rejection of an Authoritative Church which precludes their “submitting” to the Will of Christ in His Church. Thus when a matter comes up where there is serious conflict, (women’s ordination or homsexuality come to mind) there is a more than even chance that the church will split rather than it’s members humbly submitting their will to unity in Christ.

Peace
James

 

[Seeker100]

I know that you do feel that you are doing the will of God and I do not wish to seem judgemental. I hope I do not come off that way to you. God alone will, “seperate the wheat from the chaff.”
You have presented your points in Charity, if not always with clarity. The biggest point I received is a reminder that Love is central and we ALL need to approach these conversations in Christian Charity and resist the carnal impulse to unchristian arguing.
I do hope that I, along with others here, have presented you with points to consider as well. And one that I often think we don’t articulate very well here is that, many times when a person comes into the Catholic Church from a protestatn one, they do not have to leave behind many of their former beliefs. Rather they find those beliefs and desires fulfilled in the Catholic Church. I think that you would find this to be so as well.

I pray someday to meet you in heaven as we sing praise before our Creator in Glorious and Perfect Love.

Peace

Thanks
James

 

[Seeker100]

I know that you do feel that you are doing the will of God and I do not wish to seem judgemental. I hope I do not come off that way to you. God alone will, “seperate the wheat from the chaff.”
You have presented your points in Charity, if not always with clarity. The biggest point I received is a reminder that Love is central and we ALL need to approach these conversations in Christian Charity and resist the carnal impulse to unchristian arguing.
I do hope that I, along with others here, have presented you with points to consider as well. And one that I often think we don’t articulate very well here is that, many times when a person comes into the Catholic Church from a protestatn one, they do not have to leave behind many of their former beliefs. Rather they find those beliefs and desires fulfilled in the Catholic Church. I think that you would find this to be so as well.

I pray someday to meet you in heaven as we sing praise before our Creator in Glorious and Perfect Love.

Peace
James

Thanks

 

[wmscott]

You are in error. The Roman Catholic church is not the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is not of this world, the Roman Catholic church is of this world (Understand I don’t mean that in a bad way). And the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. The Kingdom of God is in the hearts of any person who loves God nomatter what building he goes to on Sunday, (Saturday or whatever). This does not mean that all have the fullness of truth. Just parts of it.

People of all denominations belong to the Kingdom of God and Jesus is the head. People of the Kingdom of God have Jesus work through them. They see Jesus in everyone they meet. The Kingdom of God is very organized and unified as God is its leader. The gates of hell can never defeat it. This would be the Catholic Church, which can be established using the Bible.
The one and only true church is NOT the Roman Catholic church. The one and only true church is a spiritual church of people who really serve God. The true church is made of people from every sect you can imagine. The true church is made of the ones that love Jesus. Where do you find this in the Bible?

Some Roman Catholics are in the true church which is the Kingdom of God and some Protestants are too. No, the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. This to can be established using the Bible.

Many Roman Catholics are certainly in the Kingdom of God but the Roman Catholic church is definitely NOT the Kingdom of God. Again, the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ.

Jesus set up a spiritual church not a worldly one. People have set the worldly church up. Not true, Christ established ONE church here on earth, the Catholic Church

In all ages there are those that serve God (love) and those that serve Baal. God knows whom His people are. What does this have to do with anything?

 

[PRmerger]

You are too rigid.

The church can very well have God’s words but the ultimate authority over every man woman and child is the Spirit of God directing them.
NEVER PUT SOMETHING IN GOD"S PLACE WITH SOMETHING ELSE.

That sounds like quite a rigid statement, Seeker.

It seems as though YOU have determined when it’s okay to be loosey-goosey with doctrine, but then when a doctrine that you hold rigidly is contradicted, then you proclaim that one cannot disagree…big yikes!