Protestants of all Confessions and Creeds: Why?

[Harpazo]

Please explain to me and the other Catholics here why it would make sense for the Church that started at Pentecost to fall into error afterwards. Or the fact that it would take 1500 years for someone to come to correct it, and then men had to keep coming afterwards to correct him.

And then you expect us to believe in the midst of all these divisions and doctrinal sectarianism, that it doesn’t matter what you believe, completely contrary to Scripture (see 1 Cor. 12:25, 2 John 1:9) Those referenced verses talk about schism and doctrines. Which doctrine is it? It obviously does not lend to a divided doctrine, because Christ, Our Lord and Our God is not divided.

So, what gives? Why should we believe a bunch of traditions that came 1500 years after Christ’s ascension. If Our Lord and God told us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and if Martin Luther had to “correct” it, would that not make Christ a liar? If the early Church believed that doctrinal unity was necessary and they fought against many heresies, why would it be logical for there to be an invisible Church, where unity of doctrine and credence did not matter.

These are some very important questions in which I am curious to see your responses. How can you, as a Protestant, accept the notion that there is only an invisible church, in spite of Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Timothy 3:15?

I am not posting this to belittle your beliefs, but I am genuinely concerned for the salvation of ALL souls, especially those who are so close to the truth.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[jesusluv]

Please explain to me and the other Catholics here why it would make sense for the Church that started at Pentecost to fall into error afterwards. Or the fact that it would take 1500 years for someone to come to correct it, and then men had to keep coming afterwards to correct him.

The Protestant Reformation wasn’t started by one man. I assume you speak of Luther when you say it took someone 1500 years to correct it and men had to keep correcting “him”.

 

[Robbinson]

Please explain to me and the other Catholics here why it would make sense for the Church that started at Pentecost to fall into error afterwards. Or the fact that it would take 1500 years for someone to come to correct it, and then men had to keep coming afterwards to correct him.

And then you expect us to believe in the midst of all these divisions and doctrinal sectarianism, that it doesn’t matter what you believe, completely contrary to Scripture (see 1 Cor. 12:25, 2 John 1:9) Those referenced verses talk about schism and doctrines. Which doctrine is it? It obviously does not lend to a divided doctrine, because Christ, Our Lord and Our God is not divided.

So, what gives? Why should we believe a bunch of traditions that came 1500 years after Christ’s ascension. If Our Lord and God told us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and if Martin Luther had to “correct” it, would that not make Christ a liar? If the early Church believed that doctrinal unity was necessary and they fought against many heresies, why would it be logical for there to be an invisible Church, where unity of doctrine and credence did not matter.

These are some very important questions in which I am curious to see your responses. How can you, as a Protestant, accept the notion that there is only an invisible church, in spite of Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Timothy 3:15?

I am not posting this to belittle your beliefs, but I am genuinely concerned for the salvation of ALL souls, especially those who are so close to the truth.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

Thank you for the post/question and I believe you when you say you are genuinely concerned for the salvation of all.

A common belief among Protestants (I caveat with “common” as there are differing views on this subject, like many others, within the greater Protestant body of faith) is that the Church referred to that will withstand the gates of hell is not an actual physical Church (i.e, the Catholic Church) but the body of true believers in Christ who collectively make up the body of Christ. This is how I came to read/interpret the scriptures as part of the Protestant faith.

So, a great deal turns on the definition/descriptive term Church as used in the gospel. In fact, some would point the seven Churches described in Revelation as evidence of the fact that there are multiple physical churches (not a single Church with multiple local chapters or congregations) with distinctions being made among them.

Now, that being said, a strong argument for a universal/Catholic Church can be found in the Apostles Creed (which is a key element within many Protestant denominations); in the scriptures (Jesus prayer for “unity” within the body of 'Christ"); authority given to the apostles for direction and teaching; and in the early Church history (which I have been reading more about recently) where the various counsels met as a collective under the authority of a single “Church” (before the reformation) to cannonize scripture and agree on other significant scriptural interpretation issues (ie., the Trinity).

It is a very interesting, and very significant, question.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[O.S.Luke]

Please explain to me and the other Catholics here why it would make sense for the Church that started at Pentecost to fall into error afterwards. Or the fact that it would take 1500 years for someone to come to correct it, and then men had to keep coming afterwards to correct him.

I suspect a strawman is being set up.

And then you expect us to believe in the midst of all these divisions and doctrinal sectarianism, that it doesn’t matter what you believe, completely contrary to Scripture (see 1 Cor. 12:25, 2 John 1:9) Those referenced verses talk about schism and doctrines. Which doctrine is it? It obviously does not lend to a divided doctrine, because Christ, Our Lord and Our God is not divided.

Who says that it doesn’t matter what you believe? Can you give us a quote?

So, what gives? Why should we believe a bunch of traditions that came 1500 years after Christ’s ascension. If Our Lord and God told us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and if Martin Luther had to “correct” it, would that not make Christ a liar? If the early Church believed that doctrinal unity was necessary and they fought against many heresies, why would it be logical for there to be an invisible Church, where unity of doctrine and credence did not matter.

What gives with the 1054 AD East/West schism?

I am not posting this to belittle your beliefs, but I am genuinely concerned for the salvation of ALL souls, especially those who are so close to the truth.

Really, Andrew? If this is true, then why do you so often use a belittling tone in your questions, statements, and comments?

I think these are good questions too.

O+

 

[jewelz]

there is no Perfect Church, I don’t think that the RCC is perfect at all, not even when it comes to their faith and their morals and their doctrines, nor is there a Perfect Protestant Church either.

if, even the apostles, who were already with Christ from the beginning of His Ministry, fell away for awhile after Christ’s death, and Christ had to restore them during His 40days on earth after His Resurrection, just to strengthen their faith, what more the Church or Christians who have not been with Christ since the beginning? do you think they never falter?

With the persecution that Jesus experienced, the true Christians also experienced, and Jesus commanded them only flee. (Matthew 10:23)
So tell me, where did the real people of God go during those times of persecution even the time of inquisition? Did they stay in Rome or did they flee to other countries in secrecy? Did the True Church die? Of course not, THEY FLEED! Christ did not lie, the church did not die but they fleed everywhere to safety and brought Christ’s pure teaching with them wherever they went.

(Gal 2:11-13)
if even Peter the “Pope” became hypocritical for a time and was corrected by Paul because the “Pope” was misleading the people by his own hypocrisy, the apostles who have been with Jesus and seen His example were mistaken, what more now?
The First “Pope” lead ASTRAY the Jews and even Barnabas, what about now? The First “Pope” who received first hand teaching from Jesus lead others astray.

Anyone, as long as we are HUMAN, we will ERR, we can ERR in anything ang everything, but God is forgiving of us, and He patiently continues to teach the HUMBLE the right things.

we have been warned that there will always be WOLVES among the SHEEP.
(Matthew 7:15)
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

in any kind of church whether Catholic or Protestant.
there will be FALSE teachers and hypocritical leaders.
They look like harmless sheep with their religious traditions to show-off to people and white robes but the fruit of their deeds are evil, inwardly their hearts are evil, God knows it, and God exposed their evil deeds. We have seen that in the many scandals, they did not spare the flock, not even children as their victims.

Acts 20
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 EVEN FROM YOUR OWN NUMBER MEN will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

(Luke 12:1)
Jesus warned us, Be on your guard against HYPOCRISY.

It would be hypocritical for the Reformers to stay with the Catholics so they fleed, and yet they were martyred.
And what about the early Church that have FLEED since the BEGINNING? they are not called Reformers.

All Protestant Churches have their Statement of Faith and by
these beliefs and teachings they are UNITED in CHRIST.
Are these churches INVISIBLE to you?

Even Catholics are not 100% united, for many have already split from RCC and some only retain the word CATHOLIC, like the OLD Catholic (due to changing doctrines), then there’s the Sedevacantist who no longer believe in the succeeding infallible Popes, etc.

 

[Harpazo]

I suspect a strawman is being set up.

I’m sorry, but you suspect wrong. These are legitimate questions, the ball is in your court, my brother.

Who says that it doesn’t matter what you believe? Can you give us a quote?

I have heard so many Protestant sects say it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe the essentials. Nearly every, if not Protestant sect proclaims this, yet they all cannot agree on what the “essentials” are, and they have no one to tell them what they are.

What gives with the 1054 AD East/West schism?

I don’t think this pertains to what is being discussed at present. Besides AD 1054 was not the cut off year. That was the mutual (and unfortunate) excommunications of Rome and Constantinople. The final schism did not take place until after the Council of Florence in the 1400s when the EO Bishops had signed back on to full communion. However, when they returned it was the faithful that rejected it and the Bishops caved under pressure.

Again, the Orthodox are Apostolic. Protestants are not, no matter how much you would like to think so.

Really, Andrew? If this is true, then why do you so often use a belittling tone in your questions, statements, and comments?

I think these are good questions too.

O+

No intention for it to be a belittling tone, as I stated above. These are very, very serious questions. If you believe to have the ENTIRE truth and you don’t share it, you are worse than a pagan. This is akin to someone drowning and you refuse to toss them a life saver and bring them to safety.

Rather than answering my questions with more questions, I would like to see how you can justify these things.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

Thank you for the post/question and I believe you when you say you are genuinely concerned for the salvation of all.

Thank you for your kind words!

A common belief among Protestants (I caveat with “common” as there are differing views on this subject, like many others, within the greater Protestant body of faith) is that the Church referred to that will withstand the gates of hell is not an actual physical Church (i.e, the Catholic Church) but the body of true believers in Christ who collectively make up the body of Christ. This is how I came to read/interpret the scriptures as part of the Protestant faith.

Who defines this belief though? There are some denominations that believe outside of their particular denomination, there is no salvation period, and that they are the Church. The thing I don’t understand though, in light of Matthew 18:15-17, Christ is telling them to go the Church. However, the point of contention is, which Church? It is clearly denoting a physical Church. Through my studies, the verse from 1 Timothy 3:15 also applies.

So, a great deal turns on the definition/descriptive term Church as used in the gospel. In fact, some would point the seven Churches described in Revelation as evidence of the fact that there are multiple physical churches (not a single Church with multiple local chapters or congregations) with distinctions being made among them.

I don’t understand how that could be. They were being written to in the Apocalypse as if they were unified body, yet in separate locations. For example “The Church in Philadelphia.”

Now, that being said, a strong argument for a universal/Catholic Church can be found in the Apostles Creed (which is a key element within many Protestant denominations); in the scriptures (Jesus prayer for “unity” within the body of 'Christ"); authority given to the apostles for direction and teaching; and in the early Church history (which I have been reading more about recently) where the various counsels met as a collective under the authority of a single “Church” (before the reformation) to cannonize scripture and agree on other significant scriptural interpretation issues (ie., the Trinity).

Don’t forget about St. Paul’s urging for doctrinal unity. This Church also collectively met to condemn heresies, establish canons, define doctrines/dogmas, etc.

It is a very interesting, and very significant, question.

Blessings,

Brian

Indeed it is.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

I’m sorry, but you suspect wrong. These are legitimate questions, the ball is in your court, my brother.

There is no court, Andrew. It is a Kingdom - and the Kingdom of God is more (name removed by moderator)ortant than a forensics match on some court somewhere.

I have heard so many Protestant sects say it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe the essentials. Nearly every, if not Protestant sect proclaims this, yet they all cannot agree on what the “essentials” are, and they have no one to tell them what they are.

I for one have never heard what evidently you claim to hear. So we have no point of reference if you can’t give me bona fide quotes. As far as hear say and casual conversation, people can say anything, Protestant and Catholic alike. As far as essentials, you are being a bit dishonest. My own tradition has only one official body that can speak for the Church - and you know that.

I don’t think this pertains to what is being discussed at present. Besides AD 1054 was not the cut off year. That was the mutual (and unfortunate) excommunications of Rome and Constantinople. The final schism did not take place until after the Council of Florence in the 1400s when the EO Bishops had signed back on to full communion. However, when they returned it was the faithful that rejected it and the Bishops caved under pressure.

Of course it pertains to the discussion. Just because you say it doesn’t certainly doesn’t make it so. If you wish to be arrogant, go ahead (because you are), but don’t expect folks to be so accommodating to you

Again, the Orthodox are Apostolic. Protestants are not, no matter how much you would like to think so.

Since my own communion says it is Apostolic (Book of Discipline, ¶303, “In ordination, the church affirms and continues the apostolic ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit”), I believe we are, no matter how much you don’t believe it.

No intention for it to be a belittling tone, as I stated above.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Rather than answering my questions with more questions, I would like to see how you can justify these things.

And have every justification I could pose (and have posed in the past) shot down, ridiculed, and basically spat upon? I don’t think so.

I don’t think I’ll “play” in your “court.”

O+

 

[Harpazo]

There is no court, Andrew. It is a Kingdom - and the Kingdom of God is more (name removed by moderator)ortant than a forensics match on some court somewhere.

Rather than spinning the question into some sort of psychological trap, it would be rather honest of you actually reply to my questions. Since you are a Protestant, this question being geared towards Protestants, I would have expected an answer or justification for your beliefs, rather than smart alec, demeaning and rude replies.

I for one have never heard what evidently you claim to hear. So we have no point of reference if you can’t give me bona fide quotes. As far as hear say and casual conversation, people can say anything, Protestant and Catholic alike. As far as essentials, you are being a bit dishonest. My own tradition has only one official body that can speak for the Church - and you know that.

You honestly do not believe that the Church is made up of all who follow Christ, regardless of doctrinal belief, praxis or denomination?

Of course it pertains to the discussion. Just because you say it doesn’t certainly doesn’t make it so. If you wish to be arrogant, go ahead (because you are), but don’t expect folks to be so accommodating to you

This particular discussion was directed towards Protestants, because they had split themselves from the Latin Church. Starting with Luther, then Henry VIII from it as well. You know what happened from there.

Since my own communion says it is Apostolic (Book of Discipline, ¶303, “In ordination, the church affirms and continues the apostolic ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit”), I believe we are, no matter how much you don’t believe it.

That is not Apostolic Succession as defined by the Early Church. I know that you have more intellectual integrity than this, Luke. By virtue of that fact that the founder of you community was never an ordained Bishop, regardless of the rumors and hear says (we know what hear say can be, don’t we, Luke?) you have no Apostolic Succession whatsoever. This is the truth. If you are going to base your belief in Apostolic Succession on some rumor, which is not even the belief or teaching of the UMC, then there is something else going on.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thank you for damning me. I would have expected that from a Fundamentalist, but not you, Luke.

And have every justification I could pose (and have posed in the past) shot down, ridiculed, and basically spat upon? I don’t think so.

I don’t think I’ll “play” in your “court.”

O+

The salvations of souls is at stake here, not personal preference of worship, equality with men and women as clergy or an open communion. I do not see how this separation from the first Church can be justified, and I was curious to see as how it could be. It is clear that it cannot, because you come up with excuse after excuse, rude remark after rude remark. I apologize for any misunderstanding you had for my intentions, but I am NOT sorry for posing this question. Instead of making snide remarks, you could have left well alone.

My questions still stand.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed due to failing charity.
MF