Couple of points. 1st, the very fact that the Church was in schism 500 years by the time of the Reformation indicates that there actually were other “differing beliefs”. 2nd, I don’t think Luther, Melanchthon, etc. saw themselves as prophets.
Well, they weren’t one group to start with…
While I generally agree here, the failure to reconcile was a two way street.
To me this view is fraught with difficulties.Due to the wide varieties of beliefs.
This is basically my position too. I belong to an Assemblies of God church, but that’s because my local AG congregation is the best church in my area, not because I think AG is The True Church, or even the best doctrinal match for what I believe (Anglican or Lutheran are closer). I could attend any church that I think is part of the universal church… but I tend to avoid the ones that practice closed communion or don’t ordain women.
The thing that is confusing is this post.
If they did wouldn’t they be Catholics?
Acceptance by whom? And if you don’t know what “capital T Truth” is how can you know if it is being accepted or not?
This idea seems to be exclusively yours (ie. strawman)
There is no such thing as Protestantism. Protestants are divided into groups, all believing, as the CC does that they have the “capital T Truth.”
Where do you get the idea that Jesus thinks we should baptize babies?
Mark 10:13-16.
I know of very few denominations that believe they and they alone have the “capital T Truth”… and that belief is an almost sure red-flag that you’re looking at a cult. Do you perhaps mean broader groupings than just denominations? Or that their claim is non-exclusive, i.e., they don’t necessarily claim to be the only ones with the “capital T Truth”?
The Orthodox Churches don’t profess different beliefs; they practice a different ecclesiology - it isn’t incompatible with the Catholic Church (since obviously we have the Eastern Rites, whose practices are identical to those of the Orthodox Churches - they remain in schism mostly for political reasons - they don’t like the Pope.
They started out Lutheran. Within a decade, they were Lutheran, Calvinist, Mennonite, and Anglican.
Council of Trent, anybody? I think the Catholic Church took the necessary steps that were indicated - that the Reformers didn’t consider it “enough” speaks more to stubbornness on their part.
Because, for His own reasons, God wants me to be a United Methodist.
My understanding from the Protestants I know is that most of them believe that anyone who believes in Jesus as savior (some require Baptism, some don’t) is a member of the true church founded by Jesus and that the denominational qualifier is a method of governance and practice only. So a Methodist believer would hold that a Presbyterian believer and a Lutheran believer are all members of the church Jesus founded. In the “olden days” a Lutheran would stay Lutheran even if he moved churches. Now it seems that any and all denominational Protestants would cross over to any other denomination/non-denomination with no hindrance. Generally done because the minister at “X” church is so dynamic, etc.I’m really confused. I know the Catholic Church claims to be the original apostolic Church that comes directly from Christ. But, there are numerous divisions in Protestantism. Any “non-denominational/independent” church is technically its own denomination because no two of such churches believe in the same thing
I’m confused as to how Methodists remain Methodists, Lutherans as Lutherans, etc. Based on my studies, no Protestant denomination claims to be the true church in the manner the Catholic Church does. There seems to be some sort of acceptance of “all are valid expressions of capital T Truth” (whatever that is, a little too poetic for me).
Does the idea that everything in Protestantism is a valid expression of “Truth” contradict Scripture? The night before his death, Christ prayed “let them be one as you and I are one”. He was speaking of God the Father. Since God is a Trinity (according to Christianity), doesn’t Protestantism itself contradict his will? The Father doesn’t think babies should be baptized and the Son not so. Right?
I will accept answers in “Christian lingo”. I get it.
Westboro are not Christian. It would be an insult to a Protestant to say thet that crew of nuts has any Christian affilitation.I’ve never met a Protestant who claims their church is the true church, with that said - there are those maniacs over at Westboro Baptist and probably a few other really extremists sects.
However, every Protestant I’ve met [at least in real life] has said that the Catholic Church is wrong.
So they don’t admit they’re in the True Church, but they also admit that the CC isn’t the True Church.
Seems like a heck of a dying mess, if you ask me. I’ll just stick to teh Church founded by Christ, thanks.
ThisMark 10:13-16.
See Iz you’re adding to what I said. I didn’t say "few denominations that believe they and they alone have the “capital T Truth” What I said is that they all believe that they have the “Truth”.
And where do you get the idea Jesus thinks baptism is exclusively for age-of-reason adults?
And also says nothing about NOT baptizing them.
That’s not the message I get here, at least from Orthodox.
Simply not the case.
Goodness. They were even afraid to attend.Council of Trent, anybody? I think the Catholic Church took the necessary steps that were indicated - that the Reformers didn’t consider it “enough” speaks more to stubbornness on their part.
Ok, good. It’s clear you don’t mean what I was afraid you meant. Yes, we all believe we have the truth. But it isn’t exclusive. We also believe others have it too; other orthodox Christians at least. A church that teaches that other Christians who aren’t in their church don’t have the truth? Show me one of those and I’ll show you a cult.
Thanks! :hug1: