Protestants, how can this be possible?

[NotTooSmart]

Here’s the problem.

Those who believe in eternal security might be more easily led astray by temptation.

This error in teaching could jeopardize salvation, as could other errors.

Don’t you think it is vital that we have a steadfast and Holy Spirit guided authority to prevent us from falling into error?

Oh sure. The pastor of my church I would consider a steadfast and Holy Spirit guided authority.

But I don’t know if those who believe in eternal security are more vulnerable to temptation. Maybe some strains of hyperCalvinism though.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Oh sure. The pastor of my church I would consider a steadfast and Holy Spirit guided authority.

But I don’t know if those who believe in eternal security are more vulnerable to temptation. Maybe some strains of hyperCalvinism though.

If your pastor is not a successor of the apostles, then his authority is self proclaimed.

He is referred to here:

Acts 15
The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes but my church does believe in the divinity of Jesus and does not believe that a one time conversion experience guarantees eternal security.

Now the divinity of Jesus is a historically settled issue,

Settled by the Catholic Church meeting in Council, I do believe. (Council of Ephesus, which also declared Mary to be “Mother of God,” as confirmation of the Divinity of Christ.)

but Christians have been debating the issue of eternal security for a long time.

Um - maybe for the past 60-80 years or so, but I don’t think the subject came up at all, before that.

I don’t believe those Christians that disagree with our church are condemned.

If they are not teaching according to Christ, then why would they not be? Jesus said, “Better for them, if they were to have a millstone hung around their neck, and be drowned in the sea, than to teach incorrectly to any of My little ones.”

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by NotTooSmart
For any branch of Christianity that claims a superior status for itself (One True Church) I would expect one could observe superior conduct,fruit,charity coming from this same branch with respect to the “inferior” branches.

At least that seems reasonable to me.

On this we pretty much agree. But catholic are only Saints in training.

And it is not we Catholics making this claim. It’s Jesus Himself, as His Mandate, as Founding Father:thumbsup:

 

[NotTooSmart]

If your pastor is not a successor of the apostles, then his authority is self proclaimed.

He is referred to here:

Acts 15
The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

Oh no, he is not self proclaimed. He was ordained by the Assemblies of God.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Oh no, he is not self proclaimed. He was ordained by the Assemblies of God.

That is self proclaimed.

The Assemblies of God are not authorized to teach by the apostles.

They are a man made church.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Settled by the Catholic Church meeting in Council, I do believe. (Council of Ephesus, which also declared Mary to be “Mother of God,” as confirmation of the Divinity of Christ.)

Um - maybe for the past 60-80 years or so, but I don’t think the subject came up at all, before that.

If they are not teaching according to Christ, then why would they not be? Jesus said, “Better for them, if they were to have a millstone hung around their neck, and be drowned in the sea, than to teach incorrectly to any of My little ones.”

Actually I think the issue started with John Calvin. And he claims to have been influenced by Augustine.

And anyway, your own catechism states that Protestants are saved by virtue of their trinitarian baptism even though from your perspective they teach error.

If eternal security was an issue of heaven or hell, then Billy Graham, whom your pope JP called his brother would be in hell. I wouldn’t think that your pope would be wrong in discerning Billy Graham as a brother in Christ now.

 

[NotTooSmart]

That is self proclaimed.

The Assemblies of God are not authorized to teach by the apostles.

They are a man made church.

And so you say.

Of course I disagree with your say so.

But of course, anybody who was born after the death of the apostles was not authorized to teach by the apostles. So this would be a null criteria methinks.

 

[jmcrae]

And so you say.

Of course I disagree with your say so.

But of course, anybody who was born after the death of the apostles was not authorized to teach by the apostles. So this would be a null criteria methinks.

Which Apostle founded the Assemblies of God Church?

Does your pastor have a list of his predecessors going back in an unbroken line through the 2,000 years of our Christian history, to a founding Apostle of his church?

 

[jmcrae]

Actually I think the issue started with John Calvin. And he claims to have been influenced by Augustine.

What John Calvin believed was that some people are created and born “saved” (he used the word “elect”), and others are created and born damned, with no power to change the outcome.

What Once Saved, Always Saved teaches is that, although we are all born damned, you can change your outcome by “getting saved” and once you do that, you cannot change back to being damned again.

John Calvin did not believe that a damned person could “get saved.” He believed that God had created them to help populate Hell, and that they could not avoid their destiny.

And anyway, your own catechism states that Protestants are saved by virtue of their trinitarian baptism even though from your perspective they teach error.

Yes, but just like Catholics, if they sin mortally after baptism, they once again are damned - we don’t believe that Protestants have some sort of guarantee of salvation that is not available to Catholics.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

And so you say.

Of course I disagree with your say so.

But of course, anybody who was born after the death of the apostles was not authorized to teach by the apostles. So this would be a null criteria methinks.

Not true. The apostles appointed authorized successors.

St. Clement, who knew both Peter and Paul and was the fourth pope, wrote this:

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

 

[NotTooSmart]

Which Apostle founded the Assemblies of God Church?

Oh, the apostles died before Assemblies of God came into being.

But they died before the Catholic church in my community was constructed also.

Does your pastor have a list of his predecessors going back in an unbroken line through the 2,000 years of our Christian history, to a founding Apostle of his church?

He might. The Assemblies of God comes from the Wesleyans which comes from the Anglicans which comes from the Catholics. So it is possible I suppose.

But if there is a break somewhere, that does not mean my pastor is self ordained. Because (repeating myself) he was ordained by Assemblies of God.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

And anyway, your own catechism states that Protestants are saved by virtue of their trinitarian baptism even though from your perspective they teach error.

.

That’s not what it says.

It says that those outside the church MAY be saved.

No one is guaranteed salvation by baptism.

 

[supreme]

I’m actually hoping for a united Protestant church someday soon. There’s mainly very minor differences between the Protestant sects.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Not true. The apostles appointed authorized successors.

St. Clement, who knew both Peter and Paul and was the fourth pope, wrote this:

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

Right. As the passage reads, these people were not born after the death of the apostles.

But the apostles could only ordain those who were alive before their death.

Anyway, what I don’t know is whether the folks that were ordained by the apostles were also considered apostled.

But this is an interesting historical account.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Right. As the passage reads, these people were not born after the death of the apostles.

But the apostles could only ordain those who were alive before their death.

For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Oh, the apostles died before Assemblies of God came into being.

But they died before the Catholic church in my community was constructed also.

He might. The Assemblies of God comes from the Wesleyans which comes from the Anglicans which comes from the Catholics. So it is possible I suppose.

But if there is a break somewhere, that does not mean my pastor is self ordained. Because (repeating myself) he was ordained by Assemblies of God.

i see that you stopped after the Catholics. interesting.
so we know that all protestantes assemblies came from One Church, the CC. they separated themselves from One True Church, then others formed by separating themselves from those men who decided to leave the One True Church in the past and continues to separate themselves as it goes. i dont mention this as a form of criticism.

make no mistake my friend that just because one man, two men, three men left the Church and went around building their own churches based on their own enterpretation of the Bible in no way invalidates the fact that Jesus built One Church. it does not. what Jesus said is done, no man can undo. it does not matter if calvin or ML goes around preaching. man can do anything they want especially if they have a hold of the Bible.

the CC says that one can be saved out side the CC, but if one knows about the Church and the Church and rejects her, may not have salvation.

do you know about the CC? do you see her?

 

[NotTooSmart]

For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

Missed that. Not good in reading comprehension I guess.

Actually I was well aware of this passage by Clement before this thread. It is interesting and I am curious how Protestants would respond to this. Maybe if I get ambitious I will try to google this. I am sure that Protestants are aware of this passage and have some type of response. It will be interesting to see if the response is credible.

Now I do observe that Clement is not “the Bible”. However, what he wrote is valid as a historical account of the church I would think.

So even for now I were to accept this as a valid historical account with the meaning that you claim it has, I can not make the inferences that you make. Specifically.I can not infer…

• The apostles believed this practice must continue for the entire church age no matter what…

AND

• That if a break occurs such as what happened during the reformation, that no matter what the reasons for the break are…(justified or unjustified), that the true church will automatically be that church which retains this practice and the false church will automatically be the church that is split off from this chain.

That is because the apostles had no knowledge of the future direction of the church and the historical event called the Protestant reformation. Of course partisans on both sides will claim that they have the apostles (and God) on their side. But the fact remains that nobody can claim to speak for the apostles. Not even you.

 

[NotTooSmart]

i see that you stopped after the Catholics. interesting.
so we know that all protestantes assemblies came from One Church, the CC. they separated themselves from One True Church, then others formed by separating themselves from those men who decided to leave the One True Church in the past and continues to separate themselves as it goes. i dont mention this as a form of criticism.

make no mistake my friend that just because one man, two men, three men left the Church and went around building their own churches based on their own enterpretation of the Bible in no way invalidates the fact that Jesus built One Church. it does not. what Jesus said is done, no man can undo. it does not matter if calvin or ML goes around preaching. man can do anything they want especially if they have a hold of the Bible.

the CC says that one can be saved out side the CC, but if one knows about the Church and the Church and rejects her, may not have salvation.

do you know about the CC? do you see her?

And of course that is your interpretation of the historical account. That God was on the side of the Catholics during the historical event called the reformation.

Of course partisans on the other side say God was on their side during the event called the reformation.

Unfortunately, what we don’t have here is God chiming in telling us what He thinks. So I am left with the opinions of man claiming to speak for God.

 

[NotTooSmart]

the CC says that one can be saved out side the CC, but if one knows about the Church and the Church and rejects her, may not have salvation.

do you know about the CC? do you see her?

Interesting that you should make some reference to this part of your catechism.

Now I have heard some Catholics say that this means: (1) You have been told the CC is “the one true church” (2) you remain a Protestant (3) therefore you do not have salvation.

Under this interpretation I would expect every Protestant here to fry when they die.

But I have also been told what this only applies if you have some type of Epiphany experience where Almighty God tells you (and you absolutely know it is Him) that…yes Virginia the CC IS indeed “The One True Church” and at that point you say no to him.

If this is the meaning, then I would expect that every Protestant here is still cool.