Protestants, pick a question take your best shot. I got nothing

[Peter_J]

Some of these questions.

If you mean like the question is God " just no longer omnipotent and self deluding about sin?" that you quoted then rest assured, no small number of Catholics would read that and say “Um … Huh?”

 

[Mammoths]

If you mean like the question is God " just no longer omnipotent and self deluding about sin?" that you quoted then rest assured, no small number of Catholics would read that and say “Um … Huh?”

Clarification, this “self delusional God” question has to do with what in Calvinist circles is called “positional truth.” It accounts for the gap between Christian experience of continued struggle with sin and the declaration of righteousness. In other words we are righteous positionally now but we won’t really be righteous until we, “put off this tent.” Itwin is a Pentecostal and in my experience this doctrine is less common in Armenian Protestant circles. If you’re like me that doesn’t clarify anything.

 

[PluniaZ]

Tomyris

No. Christ did not lose His church. I never said He did. There is a presupposition that His church is identical to the Roman Catholic Church, which is a false statement, even in Catholic belief. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox and some other churches as legitimate churches.

A more precise way of phrasing the question would be, “Did Jesus Christ allow the Church of Rome to fall into error, after having made the Church of Rome the sole bulwark against heresy in the first millennium?”

That Rome was the sole bulwark against heresy in the first millennium, see here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1037146

That Rome was regarded as such by the Church as a whole in the first millennium, see here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14502957&postcount=310

 

[PluniaZ]

Actually it’s pretty strong when you study the word church “called out ones” in context and usage it is referring to people not a religious organization. Paul’s epistles and letters are perfect examples of this. They are written directly to the people of the congregation not the religious leadership. That is quite odd in the catholic paradigm don’t you think with its top down power structure and the “church” being the sole mediator of God limiting all to pass through them? What about individuals going to the throne of Grace themselves boldly Hebrews 4:16?

The word ecclesia (church) means a calling forth. But writers afterward used it to signify a meeting or assembly, whether the people gathered together were members of a true or of a false religion. Thus in the Acts it is written of the people of Ephesus that when the town*clerk had appeased a tumultuous assemblage he said: And if you inquire after any other matter, it may be decided in a lawful church. (Acts 19:39) The Ephesians, who were worshippers of Diana, are thus called a lawful church (ecclesia). Nor are the Gentiles only, who knew not God, called a church (ecclesia); by the same name at times are also designated the councils of wicked and impious men. I have hated the church (ecclesiam) of the malignant, says the Prophet, and with the wicked I will not sit. (Psalm 26:5)

In common Scripture usage, however, the word was subsequently employed to signify the Christian society only, and the assemblies of the faithful; that is, of those who are called by faith to the light of truth and the knowledge of God, that, having forsaken the darkness of ignorance and error, they may worship the living and true God piously and holily, and serve Him from their whole heart. In a word, The Church, says St. Augustine, consists of the faithful dispersed throughout the world.’

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed09.htm

 

[ltwin]

Clarification, this “self delusional God” question has to do with what in Calvinist circles is called “positional truth.” It accounts for the gap between Christian experience of continued struggle with sin and the declaration of righteousness. In other words we are righteous positionally now but we won’t really be righteous until we, “put off this tent.” Itwin is a Pentecostal and in my experience this doctrine is less common in Armenian Protestant circles. If you’re like me that doesn’t clarify anything.

Pentecostals are Arminians, not Armenians. Common spelling error but potentially confusing.

To your point, however, even Calvinists acknowledge that there is a “growth in grace” that occurs in sanctification as we are conformed to the image of Christ. As the Westminster Confession states in “Chapter 13: Of Sanctification”:

I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]

As this confessional document witnesses to, Protestant conceptions of Christian righteousness and holiness is much broader than saying we are positionally righteous. There is also a belief in progressive and practical holiness for those who continue to work out their salvation in fear and trembling. We become actually holy over time as we conform our lives to the will of Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

Clarification, this “self delusional God” question has to do with what in Calvinist circles is called “positional truth.” It accounts for the gap between Christian experience of continued struggle with sin and the declaration of righteousness. In other words we are righteous positionally now but we won’t really be righteous until we, “put off this tent.” Itwin is a Pentecostal and in my experience this doctrine is less common in Armenian Protestant circles. If you’re like me that doesn’t clarify anything.

Thanks. I’ve never been Calvinist, so I’ll leave it to someone else to say whether Calvinists too would read that question and say “Um … Huh?”

 

[Kliska]

Is it plausible that Christ would lose his church?

No, He can’t lose anything that is His. However, is it possible for a church to lose Him? If it’s not possible, then why are there warnings upon warnings not to stray from Jesus’ teaching? It all hinges on scriptural interpretation once more.

Sola scriptura is based on outside evidence making it internally inconsistent or its based on internal evidence such as scripture, making it circular. Either way it is unsupportable, right?

Depends on what the denominations say is “sola scriptura.” Lutherans, for example, are sola scriptura but not “solo” scriptura.

After God covers our sins and makes us positionally righteous, is he just no longer omnipotent and self deluding about sin? Or perhaps he actually changes us as the church teaches.

I’ve always felt it’s a both/and instead of an either/or. But you are right in that several churches preach that there doesn’t have to be any changes, and several that preach there does need to be.

If the apostles had power to bind their teaching on earth and heaven, how did God just disregard their establishment of apostolic succession so that those who came a short time later were apostate?

It think there are a lot of good discussions and questions in this. To flip it to something I mentioned earlier, if it wasn’t possible that the “leaders” of this new Church could turn apostate, why all the warnings against such that we find in scripture? What were the components necessary to bind and loose, and how far does that power stretch?

All the sacraments mentioned in the Bible are spoken of in language consistent with the sacramental view. How did this happen if sacraments are just pictures. For that matter wouldn’t it make them vain rituals if there is no substance?

I don’t see the same overwhelming evidence of a sacramental view as you, but yes, in my searching and questioning I as the same question; if there is no actual and real power in, say baptism, then why baptize? My old answer, and I suppose my current one thus far, is that God told us too and that’s enough for me. Is that fulfilling enough? Is it the truth? I don’t know.

Why did the early fathers write like Catholics affirming catholic distinctives like the real presence–the same authors used by evangelicals to support the reliability of scripture?

Most of those that I run with wouldn’t ever use the ECF’s in any capacity, hence no contradiction. The question reverts to an earlier one for me; could rampant heresy taken over the teachers and preachers so fast?

Jesus prayed we would be one. That makes schism a sin. Where did our denomination come from?

I do agree schism = sin. Denominations includes the claim that everyone else is the schismatic.

“They went out from us because they were not of us”

This is a point in favor of the CC, IMO. The measure wasn’t departing from scripture, but rather because they departed from an Apostle and his congregation.

How did the reformation set the stage for gay marriage in the United States?

It didn’t. Our laws did. The government had just as much business regulating marriage as it did baptism. We don’t let the gov decide who is and is not baptized, it should be the same with marriage. Who gets whose money, insurance, social security, etc… should be civil, but marriage, as we define it, isn’t civil and doesn’t belong in the government’s hands, IMO.

 

[Mammoths]

Pentecostals are Arminians, not Armenians. Common spelling error but potentially confusing.

To your point, however, even Calvinists acknowledge that there is a “growth in grace” that occurs in sanctification as we are conformed to the image of Christ. As the Westminster Confession states in “Chapter 13: Of Sanctification”:

As this confessional document witnesses to, Protestant conceptions of Christian righteousness and holiness is much broader than saying we are positionally righteous. There is also a belief in progressive and practical holiness for those who continue to work out their salvation in fear and trembling. We become actually holy over time as we conform our lives to the will of Christ.

So are you saying positional righteousness is an aberration or is it a part of the doctrine. It seems to me if God gives us positional righteousness on the way of “progressive sanctification” you are still dealing with a doctrine that purports a God who is self deluding.

 

[Mammoths]

“I don’t see the same overwhelming evidence of a sacramental view as you, but yes, in my searching and questioning I as the same question; if there is no actual and real power in, say baptism, then why baptize? My old answer, and I suppose my current one thus far, is that God told us too and that’s enough for me. Is that fulfilling enough? Is it the truth? I don’t know.”

God doesn’t commit vain acts. You give a good reason to obey, because Jesus is Lord. But that doesn’t get into the meaning or substance of the act. Moses disobeyed God striking the rock a second time. He should have known better than to disobey. We know what he may not have known that the rock he struck was Christ who suffered ONCE and for all.

In the case of baptism, I was baptized because God said. I still want to know what it is.

 

[PJM]

Is it plausible that Christ would lose his church?

Sola scriptura is based on outside evidence making it internally inconsistent or its based on internal evidence such as scripture, making it circular. Either way it is unsupportable, right?

RIGHT, as well as LOGIC & history

The bible is a CATHOLIC book, but the RCC existed and GREW for hundreds of years without it

How can there be perseverance of the saints but not perseverance of the church?

Mt 16:18-19 "And I [JESUS] say to YOU That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU PETER] this rock I will build MY CHURCH [SINGULAR[ ,[COLOR=“Red”] **and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it **19] And I will give to YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

OF NOTE: this is direly to and exclusively to the Apostles and their successors: SEE Mt 10:1-8; John 17:17-20 & Mt 28:18-20 with a DITTO

After God covers our sins and makes us positionally righteous, is he just no longer omnipotent and self deluding about sin? Or perhaps he actually changes us as the church teaches.

Imputed righteousness is a 16th Century Protestant invented myth

GOD"S way for sin forgiveness is NOT to "cover them up [ML], but to actually FORGIVE & forget them. 1 Jn 1:8-9; 1 Jn 5:16-17 & John 20:19-23 ar in the bible becauee they ARE GOD"S Truth

If the apostles had power to bind their teaching on earth and heaven, how did God just disregard their establishment of apostolic succession so that those who came a short time later were apostate?

GOOGLE "List of Popes}
Succession was established by Christ personally. READ Mt 10:1-8 compared to Mt 28:18-20

I can’t address the “apostate” issue without SPECIFICS, but I sispect this wouod be most difficult to PROVE

All the sacraments mentioned in the Bible are spoken of in language consistent with the sacramental view. How did this happen if sacraments are just pictures. For that matter wouldn’t it make them vain rituals if there is no substance?

GREAT Q’s BUT SPACE is limited.

ALL 7 Sacraments ARE desired and Instituted by JESuS either specifically or implicitly to GIVE the Grace they signify

Why did the early fathers write like Catholics affirming catholic distinctives like the real presence–the same authors used by evangelicals to support the reliability of scripture?

PLEASE rephrase the Q, I don’t get you’re point

Jesus prayed we would be one. That makes schism a sin. Where did our denomination come from?; Eph 4:1-7/QUOTE]

I’ll let a protestant rely to this, BUT the entire bible, no exceptions, teaxhes what GOD desires:

One True God [the 1st Commandment]

Just One set of Faith beliefs Eph 4:1-7, Mt 16:18-19, John 17:17-20 Mt 28<18-20

And just as Yahweh selected only :My People" Exo 6:7; Christ choose “My Church” Mt 16:18 directly & exclusively

“They went out from us because they were not of us”
“Their folly will become evident to all”

How did the reformation set the stage for gay marriage in the United States?

BY making descent and “my truth is as good as you’re truth” believable ?] & acceptable to the masses; based on untruths

GBY!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Is it plausible that Christ would lose his church?

Sola scriptura is based on outside evidence making it internally inconsistent or its based on internal evidence such as scripture, making it circular. Either way it is unsupportable, right?

RIGHT

And it’s also not logical as the RCC begin with the Resurrection, and GREW for several hundred years without the bible which is a Catholic Book, not codified until the early 4th Century

How can there be perseverance of the saints but not perseverance of the church?

Such is impossible: Mt 16:18-19
[18] And I [JESUS]say to YOU That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU PETER] this rock I will build MY CHURCH [SINGULAR Eph 2:20], **and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. **[19] And I will give to YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou YOU bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

After God covers our sins and makes us positionally righteous, is he just no longer omnipotent and self deluding about sin? Or perhaps he actually changes us as the church teaches.

Imputed righteousness is a post reformation human invention. GOD"S WAY is not to merely “cover over sins” [ML], but to forgive & forget them 1 Jn 1: 8-9 1 Jn 5:16-17 & John 20:19-23.

If the apostles had power to bind their teaching on earth and heaven, how did God just disregard their establishment of apostolic succession so that those who came a short time later were apostate?

The SHORT answer is that God didn’t. Succession is Jesus Invented and Approved.

READ Mt 10:1-8, then Mt 28: 19-20 and then ACTS 1: 21-26

All the sacraments mentioned in the Bible are spoken of in language consistent with the sacramental view. How did this happen if sacraments are just pictures. For that matter wouldn’t it make them vain rituals if there is no substance?

All 7 Sacraments were desired and Instituted by Jesus Christ, either explicitly or implicitly to GIVE the graces they signify. SEE 1 Tim 2: 3-5

Why did the early fathers write like Catholics affirming catholic distinctives like the real presence–the same authors used by evangelicals to support the reliability of scripture?

My opps! Please rephrase this Q; I don’t understand it

Jesus prayed we would be one. That makes schism a sin. Where did our denomination come from?

This Q is for other protestants to reply too; HOWEVER I point out that God [Yahweh and Christ without exception desired exactly what THEY accomplished

Yahweh “My chosen People” Exo 6: 7 & Christ “MY CHURCH” Mt 16:18 BOTH singular

“They went out from us because they were not of us”
“Their folly will become evident to all”

How did the reformation set the stage for gay marriage in the United States?

By with remarkable success; REDEFINING TRUTH from

Ps.145 Verses 17 to 18 “
[17] The LORD is just in all his ways, and kind in all his doings.
[18] The LORD is near to all who call upon him,
to all who call upon him in truth.

Dictionary Definition of “Truth”

1. The true or actual state of a matter:
   conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement
2. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like mathematical truths.
3. the state or character of being true.
4. actuality or actual existence.
5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
6. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
7. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and
   transcending perceived experience:
8. agreement with a standard or original.
   9… accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
9. Archaic. Fidelity or constancy.

TEN REALITIES of a single truth

TO: “My truth is as good as you’re truth”

GBY

Patrick

 

[ltwin]

So are you saying positional righteousness is an aberration or is it a part of the doctrine.

Protestant soteriology distinguishes between justification (which is positional) and sanctification (which is progressive).

From a Reformed perspective, Fisher’s Shorter Catechism Explained gives a good breakdown:

Q. 10. In what do they differ in their matter?

A. The matter of justification is the righteousness of Christ; but the matter of sanctification is the fullness of Christ communicated, or grace imparted from him, out of whose fullness we receive, “and grace for grace,” John 1:16.

Q. 11. How do they differ as to their kind?

A. Justification makes a relative, sanctification a real change: the first changes a man’s state, the other changes his heart and life, Ezek. 36:26.

Q. 12. How do they differ as to their form, or manner of conveyance?

A. Justification is effected by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us; sanctification, by the implantation of his grace in us.

[Cut]

Q. 18. How do they differ as to evidence?

A. Justification is evidenced by our sanctification; . . .

Q. 19. How do they differ in their relation to the law?

A. . . . justification is a judicial sentence, absolving us from law-debt; sanctification, a spiritual change, fitting us for law-duty.

[Cut]

Q. 21. How do they differ in their use to believers?

A. Justification gives us a title to heaven and eternal life; sanctification gives a meetness for it: justification is God’s act, pronouncing our persons righteous in Christ, and taking away the guilt of sin; sanctification is the Spirit’s work, cleansing our nature, and taking away the filth of sin: by the former, we are instated into the favour of God; by the latter, adorned with the image of God.

It seems to me if God gives us positional righteousness on the way of “progressive sanctification” you are still dealing with a doctrine that purports a God who is self deluding.

What do you mean by “on the way of”? Justification precedes sanctification. Sanctification is the fruit of justification.To put it another way, our being declared righteous or “not guilty” precedes our becoming holy in life and gaining some level of dominion over sin.

God is not deluding himself. We are saved by grace–not because we somehow merited our salvation. God has always known that “all have sinned and fallen short” of His glory. He is not in denial.

What God has done, in His wisdom and for the purpose of His own glory, is to save us from the guilt of sin by having Christ take our place. We in turn take His place. Christ took our guilt, and we took His righteousness. This allows God to declare us legally free from guilt.

Yet, it doesn’t end there. By faith, we now share in Christ’s death and life. Our lives are no longer our own. The Spirit is at work within us-molding and shaping us into the image of Christ. We become more like Him every day as we yield to the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit and the Word.

What God declares about us in justification is made a reality through the process of sanctification (in this life) and glorification (complete perfection in the life to come). In any case, there is no divine denial going on–only divine grace in that God made a way for us to be justified even though we did not truly deserve it.

But of course, that is what grace means-unmerited favor. It we merited God’s favor in the first place, then we would be justified by ourselves, and we would not need to be justified by God’s grace.

 

[jericho777]

Do you have a citation for your definition of church?

Here’s mine:
biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm

That one works for me too. When read in context you see the word is directed to individuals and collectively as a body of believers. The Catholic view puts them as the church proper rather than individuals. That’s one of the things that got William Tyndale in trouble saying the “church” was primarily the individuals not the “Church”.

Back to my other point of the significance of Paul and the other Apostles directly addressing the people themselves. You realize it empowered the individuals with scripture given directly to them leaving them to apply it themselves and not have it mediated like it is in the Catholic model? Also it shows the importance of scripture itself in the life of the individual believer.

 

[PJM]

No, He can’t lose anything that is His. However, is it possible for a church to lose Him? If it’s not possible, then why are there warnings upon warnings not to stray from Jesus’ teaching? It all hinges on scriptural interpretation once more.

For the SAKE of discussion then; WHO get’s to determine what the One correct biblical teaching is? The 2,000 year old Catholic Church STILL has just one set of faith beliefs HOW many do other Christian churches have? [And NO: not all of them can be =]

for at least two reasons:

[1] Truth can by definition be nothing other than singular per defined issue

Dictionary Definition of “Truth”

1. The true or actual state of a matter:
   conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement
2. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like mathematical truths.
3. the state or character of being true.
4. actuality or actual existence.
5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
6. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
7. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and
   transcending perceived experience:
8. agreement with a standard or original.
   9… accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
9. Archaic. Fidelity or constancy.

[2] NO"church" can be separated from its OWN set of faith beliefs, as it is their SET of beliefs that GIVE them their identity

Depends on what the denominations say is “sola scriptura.” Lutherans, for example, are sola scriptura but not “solo” scriptura

So 2 Q’s
[1] What’s the difference.

[2] what is the biblical foundation for either?

I’ve always felt it’s a both/and instead of an either/or. But you are right in that several churches preach that there doesn’t have to be any changes, and several that preach there does need to be.

It think there are a lot of good discussions and questions in this. To flip it to something I mentioned earlier, if it wasn’t possible that the “leaders” of this new Church could turn apostate, why all the warnings against such that we find in scripture? What were the components necessary to bind and loose, and how far does that power stretch?

[1] The Infallible RULE for RIGHT understanding of the bible

**Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith**

[2] The bible is a CATHOLIC book. It was Catholics who Inspired by the HS selected the 46 OT books, & it was Catholics who AUTHORED the entire NT; & nit Catholic ALONE that Christ promised to PROTECT in Teaching HIS truths: Mt 16: 18-19; John 17:17-20 & Mt 28:18*-20 [NOTE the singular tense WORDS fron Christ to His RCC directly and exclusively

It is precisely BECAUSE the bible is a Catholic book by intent BY Catholics & exclusively for Catholics [the Fathers did not anticipate the 16th Century Reformation] so that needs to be factored in to gain RIGHT understanding.

Secondly “the Church” in a literal sesne cannot be apostate; OR GOD lied:shrug: Mt 16:18-19; John 17:17-20 & Mt 28:19-20 taken literally and exclusively to the RCC

Mt 7: 13-25
Enter ye in at the narrow gate:[singular] for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!** Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.**

By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

End pt 1 of 2