Protestants: If it's not mentioned in Scripture, is your fall-back position that it's prohibited, or permissible? And how do you know?

[prochrist1]

Church tradition specially one that has always had so much political/geopolitical/social influence not to mention strong lobbying power, like the Roman Catholic church cannot be trusted even today and that is what lead Martin Luther and the Calvinists to “protest” but it WAS not a one off event, in fact it was brewing for years… The Roman Church got carried away so we ended up with the reformation and the Church was forced to launch the council of Trent, and make some dogmatic changes to amend its mistakes and so here we are today

 

[Kristin234]

These non-denominational churches are in store fronts, malls, school auditoriums, movie theaters, and homes in addition to their own buildings.

I have an honest question. Is that statement intended for the purpose of making non-denominational churches look bad?

“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Christians have church in basements, schools, etc in countries where one can be killed for practicing Christianity. Doesn’t mean they aren’t sincerely worshiping God and that he isn’t present. Should they be looked down upon because they aren’t in a building that is specifically called “church”?

By the way, not all non-denominational churches are what you think they are. My church has actually lost members because my pastor only speaks from the Bible. People come here thinking that it is a church that will approve of every sinful thing they do and are shocked when the church refuses to condone what goes against the Bible.
He even spoke up about how some churches will do anything they can to get new members, such as a pastor saying if they get a certain amount of people to come to church he will sit in a glass box. Or clowns leading church. Or churches doing whole sermons on sex. :nope:

Mark David, does the Catholic Church teach that Protestants don’t have God’s whole love while Catholics do? I’m not familiar with the teaching that God loves Christians unequally. I know that the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants don’t have the whole truth but love also? Did I misunderstand you? If it is in the Catechism or in the Bible can you please cite that? Thanks!

 

[Mark_David]

Mark David, does the Catholic Church teach that Protestants don’t have God’s whole love while Catholics do? I’m not familiar with the teaching that God loves Christians unequally. I know that the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants don’t have the whole truth but love also? Did I misunderstand you? If it is in the Catechism or in the Bible can you please cite that? Thanks!

You either have God’s love or you don’t. However, nothing will impure will enter into Heaven, and so some who adhere to bad theology (bad trees, bad fruit) will likely have to go to Purgatory. As I stated, some Protestants may, and do have God’s love - but this is not guaranteed for all. One shouldn’t assume by the CCC passage Jon quoted that all “Christians” are saved outside the visible Church. Why take a riskier route based on man’s distortions rather than Christ’s doctrines? How does that help salvation, as opposed to hinder it?

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. - Matthew 28:19 (This is the Catholic/Universal Church)

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. - John 6:53-55 (Transubstantiation is a fact. Once a person realizes this, there’s no turning back or appeals to ignorance - God will not be mocked.)

One Lord, one faith, one baptism. - Ephesians 4:5 (Faith is only valid if it’s in God as He is, and not false idols - the First Commandment.)

 

[PRmerger]

IMy church has actually lost members because my pastor only speaks from the Bible.

Kristin, every non-denominational pastor claims that he “only speaks from the Bible.”.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;8036303]Why would you do that, Jon? Do you not believe that your church is the church that Christ established?

No. I think it is part of the Church Christ founded, the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. I would do that because, if that were the case, which it is not (our brother Mark, by his own definition, does not understand what sola fide is, at least the Lutheran understanding), it would be contrary to scripture, which indeed requires that we follow His commands that we help the least of His children.

If so, and if that is what she professes, would it not be the right thing for you to do for you to conform your beliefs to that which Christ’s church proclaims, rather than leaving to find a church which professes that which you believe?

Did I answer this?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Mark David;8036981]An unsourced quote I found online:

Accordingly if the devil should say, ‘Do not drink,’ you should reply to him, 'On this very account, because you forbid it, I shall drink, and what is more, I shall drink a generous amount. Thus one must always do the opposite of that which Satan prohibits. What do you think is my reason for drinking wine undiluted, talking freely, and eating more often, if it is not to torment and vex the devil who made up his mind to torment and vex me.
~ Martin Luther

And by this you assume he was an alcoholic?

As for infidelity, yes - Luther believed in reverting back to Old Testament times in that a spouse unwilling to do, or incapable of doing, their “marital duties” could have a lover to fulfill that purpose; the other spouse should accept this gracefully.

Perhaps a bit more research is in order. Personally, I think Luther was wrong with his advice to Philip of Hesse, in his belief that, between bigamy and divorce, divorce was far worse. But then, folks such as Erasmus and even the pope held a similar view. Viewed through the lens of today, it was terrible advice.

Even if these things are elaborate lies, the fact remains that Luther preached heresies - teachings contrary to sound doctrine that had been well-established for the prior 1500 years. Do you really think God would allow His Church to be in error and heresy that long until someone finally came along and corrected them? That may even suggest that God was incapable of correcting his church for well-over a millennium. Common sense alone tells you that something is wrong with this picture.

No, I don’t, and I never said He did.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

No. I think it is part of the Church Christ founded, the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. I would do that because, if that were the case, which it is not (our brother Mark, by his own definition, does not understand what sola fide is, at least the Lutheran understanding), it would be contrary to scripture, which indeed requires that we follow His commands that we help the least of His children.

Did I answer this?

Jon

You surely did!

It is, I suppose, consistent with your profession that Scripture is the final authority, and if someone preaches something contrary to Scripture, then you must leave that someone.

I just don’t see how this works in real life. What happens, in reality, is that when one declares that Scripture is the final authority, what really happens is this: *my own interpretation *of Scripture becomes the final authority.

Thus, we have church shopping, church-splitting, or the “I don’t need no stinkin’ church because all I need is the Bible and me” paradigm.

Instead of one person humbly conforming his mind to the Church…paradoxically (and, perhaps diabolically??) we have millions of folks with the paradigm that the church must conform to their minds.

 

[Mark_David]

And by this you assume he was an alcoholic?

As an ex-alcoholic myself, I know when someone is trying to justify their heavy drinking. That quote, and everything else that I’ve read about Luther + his drinking, confirms someone who tried to justify their Alcoholism. Alcoholism is what it is. Also: since when does Satan decide or determine how we should react to things? That quote is very disturbing.

Perhaps a bit more research is in order. Personally, I think Luther was wrong with his advice to Philip of Hesse, in his belief that, between bigamy and divorce, divorce was far worse. But then, folks such as Erasmus and even the pope held a similar view. Viewed through the lens of today, it was terrible advice.

I’m glad that you can admit this. As for the Popes, I’m the first to admit that several of them (particularly during the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance) had been fairly bad men. That, however, doesn’t undermine the sacred jewels that make up Christ’s Church; in fact, it’s a testament to its eternal nature.

No, I don’t, and I never said He did.

So, what was the point or value of the Reformation in your view?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

By the way, not all non-denominational churches are what you think they are. My church has actually lost members because my pastor only speaks from the Bible.

That is perhaps one of the strangest things I’ve heard on the subject. What else is your pastor supposed to preach on?.. the latest NYTimes #1 bestseller on self-help?

 

[lisaraek]

I have an honest question. Is that statement intended for the purpose of making non-denominational churches look bad?

“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Christians have church in basements, schools, etc in countries where one can be killed for practicing Christianity. Doesn’t mean they aren’t sincerely worshiping God and that he isn’t present. Should they be looked down upon because they aren’t in a building that is specifically called “church”?

By the way, not all non-denominational churches are what you think they are. My church has actually lost members because my pastor only speaks from the Bible. People come here thinking that it is a church that will approve of every sinful thing they do and are shocked when the church refuses to condone what goes against the Bible.
He even spoke up about how some churches will do anything they can to get new members, such as a pastor saying if they get a certain amount of people to come to church he will sit in a glass box. Or clowns leading church. Or churches doing whole sermons on sex. :nope:

Mark David, does the Catholic Church teach that Protestants don’t have God’s whole love while Catholics do? I’m not familiar with the teaching that God loves Christians unequally. I know that the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants don’t have the whole truth but love also? Did I misunderstand you? If it is in the Catechism or in the Bible can you please cite that? Thanks!

I am only stating a fact concerning non-denominational churches which start out in many places besides the usual church building. There was no perjorative intended, only truth. My point is that these churches can be started up anywhere with only a pastor and a dream. If there are 20 such churches in my little part of the world, each preaching their exclusive truth, than how many are there in Colorado? in the US alone? They all can’t be right, can they?,LK

 

[Kristin234]

That is perhaps one of the strangest things I’ve heard on the subject. What else is your pastor supposed to preach on?.. the latest NYTimes #1 bestseller on self-help?

What I meant was that a lot of pastors preach that it is okay to do things that are condemned in the Bible. Many people come to my church thinking that it will be like that and they are surprised when it isn’t.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

What I meant was that a lot of pastors preach that it is okay to do things that are condemned in the Bible. Many people come to my church thinking that it will be like that and they are surprised when it isn’t.

Okay, thanks for the clarification, it focuses on the the condemnation of anti-biblical practices.

 

[Big_Dummy]

depends on what “it” is and how it relates to principles in scripture. For example, drinking wine at a church function. There may be weak believers who drinking wine would be a stumbling block for. Thus in that situation, I would not drink wine period, just in case.

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;8039055]

It is, I suppose, consistent with your profession that Scripture is the final authority, and if someone preaches something contrary to Scripture, then you must leave that someone.

Since I was talking hypothetically, let me just continue. I probably should have said, if my communion changed its teaching in this way. They haven’t, which is what makes it hypothetical. So, for example, if by some strange happening the CC began to toy with the idea of a symbolic Eucharist, would you submit to that? I certainly hope not. I wouldn’t if my Church did.

I just don’t see how this works in real life. What happens, in reality, is that when one declares that Scripture is the final authority, what really happens is this: *my own interpretation *of Scripture becomes the final authority.

If my Church did do that, it would be rejecting the doctrinal confessions of Lutheranism, just like if either of our communions began teaching a symbolic Eucharist. I’m not talking about what “someone” preaches, I’m talking about what the Church teaches. I am bound to scripture as it is rightly reflected by the confessions, not to someone’s opinion about it.
so, its not my interpretation of scripture, but the confessions, the early councils and creeds, etc, that matters.

Thus, we have church shopping, church-splitting, or the “I don’t need no stinkin’ church because all I need is the Bible and me” paradigm.

And that’s entirely contrary to Lutheranism.

Instead of one person humbly conforming his mind to the Church…paradoxically (and, perhaps diabolically??) we have millions of folks with the paradigm that the church must conform to their minds.

Let me ask you a question;
Wouldn’t you say that it is your hope that all n-C’s would conform their minds to the teaching of the CC? If so, were I to become Catholic, would that be Church-hopping? Or would you consider a good decision on my part. I ask this because, while not mentioned in my hypothetical, perhaps only one or two communions would I consider - Catholic, and perhaps a conservative Anglican setting.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Mark David;8040734]As an ex-alcoholic myself, I know when someone is trying to justify their heavy drinking. That quote, and everything else that I’ve read about Luther + his drinking, confirms someone who tried to justify their Alcoholism. Alcoholism is what it is. Also: since when does Satan decide or determine how we should react to things? That quote is very disturbing.

I can see, Mark, why with your personal experience, it might be. I pray the Holy SPirit continues to guide you in your continung efforts to remain sober.

I’m glad that you can admit this. As for the Popes, I’m the first to admit that several of them (particularly during the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance) had been fairly bad men. That, however, doesn’t undermine the sacred jewels that make up Christ’s Church; in fact, it’s a testament to its eternal nature.

Indeed, though I would think we might agree how difficult that understanding might have been from the perspective someone living in the 1500’s.

So, what was the point or value of the Reformation in your view?

From the perspective of 16th century Germany, and considering the hardheadedness of all of those involved, they probably all thought there was a value in their positions. Luther and the other reformers clearly thought they were working to return the Church to its rightful teachings, as found in the early councils, the ECF’s, etc.
From the perspective of today, it is a terrible wound to the ministry of Christ’s Church, that we are divided contrary to Christ’s call that we all be one. The goal, then, and this relates back to our intial conversation regarding desire for unity, is finding our way back to unity through dialogue, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It won’t be easy, as the tention of our first exchange demonstrates because of the 490 years of division. But seeing the Holy Spirit in each other, as frankly many of our leaders have since Vatican II, is a good start.

Jon

 

[Mark_David]

Indeed, though I would think we might agree how difficult that understanding might have been from the perspective someone living in the 1500’s.

Yes, Luther had a very limited perspective of the Church (or, rather, of its Truths). He claimed to be a Catholic all along until he finally decided that the Pope was the “Antichrist” and began formulating radical ideas regarding what “Christianity” is. So, why do you hold to his teachings? It doesn’t matter how popular Lutheranism became in the meantime, or how long ago the Reformation occurred… Luther was an official heretic who decided what he thought Scripture meant, contrary to 1500 years of Christ’s teaching of it. Sola scriptura is, in fact, viewed through the lens of Luther; it’s based on the authority of the Church of Luther, not of Christ.

From the perspective of today, it is a terrible wound to the ministry of Christ’s Church, that we are divided contrary to Christ’s call that we all be one.

Luther was invited by Pope Leo X to talk things out. He refused. He was hostile to Church authority from day one, even when he was still claiming fidelity to the Church at the same time. The Reformation wasn’t inevitable. Luther’s arrogance and bad theology started it. Yes, there were clerical abuses - but these had nothing to do with theology.

The goal, then, and this relates back to our intial conversation regarding desire for unity, is finding our way back to unity through dialogue, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But how is any meaningful degree of unity possible when sola scriptura undermines Christ’s Church, and sola fide is a false teaching created by Luther? This is one reason why heresy is so bad. There’s no way to compromise with it; the only way to correct it is to eradicate it. Yes, we can be civil to each other, but these essential differences will always remain, until the Truth is finally revealed to those who hold to the doctrines of a very confused man.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I would like to contribute a quick answer to the OP.

This thread brings back some of my darkest memories about evangelical Protestantism and actually makes me shudder. Authority issues were the reason that my husband and I were kicked out of our evangelical church. So I am following this thread with much interest.

I was evangelical Protestant for 47 years before converting to Catholicism. We believed in a “chain of authority.”

Parents were on top, so they would be our “ultimate authority,” as long as they did not ask us to do (or not do) something opposed to the teachings of the Bible.

Then came the husband–yes, I always found this strange that husband was after parents. It sets up some conflicts in marriages. Same stipulation–a husband could not ask a wife to do (or not do) something opposed to Scripture.

After husband came pastor (s) of your local church. Same stipulation.

Then teachers in the local church. Same stipulation.

And then various other authority figures outside of the Church, like the government, your boss or supervisor, your local police, etc.

I believe this “chain of authority” model came from Bill Gothard’s Basic Youth Conflicts seminars, and NOT ALL Evangelical Protestants accept this teaching.

I soured on it way back in college, when one of my friends volunteered for a short-term mission trip, and one of the old ladies in our church who was a Gothardite came to her privately and told her not to go, as her parents did not approve. The old lady told my friend that if anything happened to her overseas, that her parents would probably completely reject God, and then it would be my friend’s fault that her parents were in hell.

Her parents were non-Christians with no interest in the things of God, and it made no sense to me or my friend that they would have the authority to tell her not to serve God (she was of age, BTW).

The pastor of our church stepped in and sternly told the old lady to back off, that the Gothardite teaching was NOT Scriptural, and told my friend to go ahead and serve her mission term.

Ah, memories! The many conflicts in the evangelical churches! Shudder. Just imagine telling a young woman that it is her fault that her parents are going to hell! Who, really, is in danger of hell here?

You will find that many evangelicals still hold to some form of the Gothardite teaching about a “chain of authority,” in which parents, husband, and then the Church are the authorities. If you look at evangelical Protestant “fads” and “bandwagons” over the years and recently, I believe you will see evidence of the Gothardite teachings; e.g., the fad about courtship marriage, where the parents have the say-so over when and who their child dates, even after the child is over age 18. This fad has crept into Catholic culture, too, and I think Catholics should take a closer look at where it came from and who started it and whether or not it is really a “Catholic” teaching.

I hope this information is useful.

Hmm…Bill Gothard you say…

We were involved in a “Bill Gothard” type church many years ago. It was kinda weird. I will leave it at that. For further reading research the topic of “spiritual abuse”.

Over time they gradually moved away from the Gothard influence. And we moved away by moving from the area.

My one disagreement is the phrase “many evangelicals”. From my experience it is a “small minority of evangelicals”. Where I now live it is next to zero evangelicals. But that is my experience.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, Luther had a very limited perspective of the Church (or, rather, of its Truths). He claimed to be a Catholic all along until he finally decided that the Pope was the “Antichrist” and began formulating radical ideas regarding what “Christianity” is. So, why do you hold to his teachings? It doesn’t matter how popular Lutheranism became in the meantime, or how long ago the Reformation occurred… Luther was an official heretic who decided what he thought Scripture meant, contrary to 1500 years of Christ’s teaching of it. Sola scriptura is, in fact, viewed through the lens of Luther; it’s based on the authority of the Church of Luther, not of Christ.

Luther was invited by Pope Leo X to talk things out. He refused. He was hostile to Church authority from day one, even when he was still claiming fidelity to the Church at the same time. The Reformation wasn’t inevitable. Luther’s arrogance and bad theology started it. Yes, there were clerical abuses - but these had nothing to do with theology.

I think, Mark, that we have different understandings of the history of the Reformation, which obviosuly can’t be solved in a forum such as this.

But how is any meaningful degree of unity possible when sola scriptura undermines Christ’s Church, and sola fide is a false teaching created by Luther? This is one reason why heresy is so bad. There’s no way to compromise with it; the only way to correct it is to eradicate it. Yes, we can be civil to each other, but these essential differences will always remain, until the Truth is finally revealed to those who hold to the doctrines of a very confused man.

I would encourage you to read some of the documents that have come out of the last 60 years between our communions. I think you will find that there has been a great dialogue that has begun to work its way through our differences, at least in terms of the way we view each other. A great example is the March 2010 visit by the Pope to the Lutheran Church in Rome.
I reject the notion that our differences are irreconcilable, as that would limit the power of the Holy Spirit. But if they cannot be reconciled between now and the second coming, I look forward to sharing His truth with you, regardless of what that truth may show.

His Peace,
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

What I meant was that a lot of pastors preach that it is okay to do things that are condemned in the Bible. Many people come to my church thinking that it will be like that and they are surprised when it isn’t.

Does your pastor preach that divorce and re-marriage is adultery?

 

[PRmerger]

depends on what “it” is and how it relates to principles in scripture. For example, drinking wine at a church function. There may be weak believers who drinking wine would be a stumbling block for. Thus in that situation, I would not drink wine period, just in case.

Well, BD, “drinking wine at a church function” is clearly found in Scripture*, no? So this “it” does not really fit the criterion.

*John 2: 1-11

But the question remains, if a particular practice is not found in Scripture, is it, by default allowed, or forbidden? And how do you know?